SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS of P5,198.

75, but the right to compel the the rule-making power of the Supreme
defendants "to litigate among themselves". Court, which is limited to matters
Rule 62 concerning pleading, practice, and procedure
1. Makati Development Corp. v. Issue: Does the MTC have jurisdiction over in all courts, and the admission to the
Tanjuatco, 27 SCRA 401 (1969) the case? practice of law. Thirdly, the failure of said
section 19 of Rule 5 of the present Rules of
Facts: Plaintiff Makati Dev’t Corp and Held: No. Plaintiff may compel the Court to make its Rule 63, on interpleading,
defendant Tanjuatco entered into a contract defendants to interplead among themselves applicable to inferior courts, merely implies
whereby the latter bound himself to concerning the aforementioned sum of that the same are not bound to follow Rule
construct a reinforced concrete covered P5,198.75. The issue of who among the 63 in dealing with cases of interpleading, but
water reservoir, office and pump house and defendants is entitled to collect the same is may apply thereto the general rules on
water main at Forbes Park, furnishing the the object of the action and is not within the procedure applicable to ordinary civil action
materials necessary therefor. Before making jurisdiction of the MTC. in said courts.
the final payment of the consideration
agreed upon, plaintiff inquired from the The plaintiff in asserting the jurisdiction of The MTC has no jurisdiction over the case
suppliers of materials, who had called its the CFI relies upon Rule 63 of the present since the amount subject of the interpleader
attention to unpaid bills of Tanjuatco, Rules of Court, prescribing the procedure in does not exceed 400,000. Under Batas
whether the latter had settled his accounts cases of interpleading, and section 19 of Pambasa Blg. 129, MTC has no jurisdiction
with them. In response to this inquiry, Rule 5, which omits the Rules on over civil actions where the value of the
Concrete Aggregates, Inc. (supplier) made a Interpleading among those made applicable personal property, estate, or amount of the
claim in the sum of P5,198.75, representing to inferior courts. However, the jurisdiction demand does not exceed 400k.
the cost of transit-mixed concrete allegedly of our courts over the subject-matter of
delivered to Tanjuatco. With his consent, justiciable controversies is governed by Rep. However, where the subject of the
plaintiff withheld said amount from the final Act No. 296, as amended, pursuant to interpleader is not the possession or title of
payment made to him and, in view of his which municipal courts shall have exclusive real or personal property but the
subsequent failure to settle the issue thereon original jurisdiction in all civil cases "in performance of a service, it is the RTC that
with the Supplier, plaintiff instituted the which the demand, exclusive of interest, or has jurisdiction being a subject incapable of
present action against Tanjuatco and the the value of the property in controversy", pecuniary estimation.
Supplier, to compel them "to interplead their amounts to not more than PHP10,000.
conflicting claims."
Tanjuatco moved to dismiss the case, upon
the ground that the court had no jurisdiction
over the subject-matter of the litigation, the
amount involved therein being less than
P10,000.00. The lower court granted the
same and dismissed the case. Hence, this
appeal. Plaintiff contends that the CFI has Secondly, "the power to define, prescribe,
jurisdiction because the subject-matter of and apportion the jurisdiction of the various
this litigation is not the aforementioned sum courts" belongs to Congress  and is beyond
 payments Diaz made to Bliss and the value final; (2) the judgment or order must be on
2. Bliss Development Corp v. Diaz, of the improvements he introduced on the the merits; (3) it must have been rendered by
August 5, 2015 property matters that were not adjudicated a court having jurisdiction over the subject
upon in the previous case for interpleader.  matter and the parties; (4) there must be,
Facts: Bliss Development Corporation is the between the first and the second action,
owner of a housing complex located in BDC also argued in its respective answer identity of parties, of subject matter and
Quezon City. It instituted before RTC that Diaz’s complaint for reimbursement is cause of action.
Makati an interpleader case against Arreza barred by res judicata since it should have
and Diaz who were conflicting claimants of been raised in the interpleader suit. In the case at bar, such elements are not
the property (Civil Case No. 94-2086). The present. First, the interpleader case was
RTC ruled in favor of Arreza. In view of between Arreza and Diaz. While it is BDC
said decision, Bliss executed a contract to that initiated the interpleader case, the
sell the property to Arreza and Diaz was ISSUE: opposing parties in that prior case are Arreza
constrained to transfer possession together and Diaz.
with all improvements to Arreza. WHETHER OR NOT RES JUDICATA
APPLIES. Res judicata (action is barred by Second, the issues resolved in the
Thereafter, Diaz filed a case against Arreza prior judgment) interpleader case revolved around the
and Bliss for the reimbursement of the cost conflicting claims of Arreza and Diaz, and
of his acquisition and improvements on the not whatever claim either of them may have
property (Civil Case No. 96-1372). Arreza RULING: against BDC.
filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of
res judicata and lack of cause of action. RTC As to Diaz’s complaint for reimbursement, Therefore, there is no identity of parties, nor
denied the Motion to Dismiss. such is barred by res judicata as her identity of subject matter between the
complaint is in the nature of a compulsory interpleader case and complaint for sum of
Arreza appealed to CA which dismissed the counterclaim which should have been raised money.
petition saying that res judicata does not in the interpleader suit. Not having been
apply because the interpleader case only raised, the same is barred pursuant to
settled the issue on who had a better right. It Section 2, Rule 9. Therfore, Arreza is
did not determine the parties‘ respective correct in his argument that Diaz’s
rights and obligations. complaint is barred by res judicata.

However, BDC’s argument that Diaz’s

complaint for reimbursement is barred by
res judicata is not correct. The elements of
res judicata are not present.

The action filed by Diaz seeks principally The elements of res judicata are as follows:
the collection of damages in the form of the (1) the former judgment or order must be
 that petitioner be declared in default. In its motion to set aside the order of default
3. Lui Enterprises v. Zuellig, March 12, subsequent motion to set aside the order of found that petitioner failed to show the
2014 default – filed one year after being declared excusable negligence that prevented it from
in default - Lui invoked the ground of filing its motion to dismiss on time. The CA
excusable negligence, alleging that its further ruled that the nullification of deed of
Facts: failure to file a motion to dismiss on time dation in payment case did not bar the filing
 Petitioner Lui Enterprises, Inc. and "was caused by the negligence of its former of the interpleader case, since Zuellig was
respondent Zuellig Pharma Corporation counsel”. For meritorious defense, petitioner not a party to the aforementioned case. In its
entered into a 10-year lease contract over a alleged that the earlier filed nullification of subsequent petition before the SC, petitioner
parcel of land located in Barrio Tigatto, deed of dation in payment case (Davao argued that the pending nullification of deed
Buhangin, Davao City. During the pendency RTC) barred the filing of the interpleader of dation in payment case barred the filing
of the lease, respondent Philippine Bank of case (Makati RTC). The two actions of the interpleader case. The nullification of
Communications (PBCOM) contacted allegedly involved the same parties and the deed of dation in payment case and the
Zuellig to inform them that it was the new same issue of which corporation had the interpleader case allegedly involved the
owner of the property, and asked the latter to better right over the rental payments (aka, same issue of which corporation had the
pay rent directly to it. Zuellig subsequently Litis Pendentia).  better right to the rent. 
informed petitioner of PBCOM’s letter, and
petitioner insisted on its right to collect rent. The Makati RTC ruled that Lui Enterprises Issue:
As a result of this, Zuellig Pharma filed a was "barred from any claim in respect of the  Whether or not the annulment of deed of
complaint for interpleader with the Makati rental payments" since it was declared in dation in payment pending in Davao RTC
Regional Trial Court of Makati, consigned default, awarded the rental fees to PBCOM, barred the subsequent filing of the
its current (P604,024.35) and future rental and ordered the petitioner to pay Zuellig interpleader case in the Regional Trial Court
payments to the court, and prayed to for Zui Pharma P50,000.00 in attorney’s fees.  of Makati on grounds of litis pendentia.
Enterprises and PBCOM be ordered to
litigate their conflicting claims. Petitioner Held: 
filed a motion to dismiss, stating that it had a No. Petition denied, CA ruling affirmed with
pending nullification of deed of dation in modification.
payment case with the Regional Trial Court
of Davao, which barred the filing of the Litis pendentia is Latin for "a pending
current interpleader case as the dation case suit." It exists when "another action is
involved the proper that Zuelling was pending between the same parties for the
leasing. Zuellig responded that the pendency same cause of action The subsequent action
of the nullification case did not bar the filing is "unnecessary and vexatious" and is
of the interpleader, as it (Zuellig) was not a instituted to "harass the respondent [in the
party to the nullification case. subsequent action]." The requisites of litis
pendentia are:
Petitioner had also filed its motion to
dismiss beyond the 15-day period to file an Petitioner appealed the RTC ruling to the
answer, and Zuellig subsequently moved Court of Appeals, which on the matter of the
  Identity of parties or at least such as the defaulted claimant from any claim in
represent the same interest in both respect to the subject matter.
actions;
 Identity of rights asserted and reliefs The Rules would not have allowed claimants
prayed for, the reliefs being founded in interpleader cases to be declared in
on the same facts; and default if it would ironically defeat the very
 The identity in the two cases should purpose of the suit.
be such that the judgment that may
be rendered in one would, regardless
of which party is successful, amount
to res judicata in the other.

All of the requisites must be present. Absent

one requisite, there is no litis pendentia. 

In the current case, there is no litis

pendentia since there is no identity of parties
in the nullification of deed of dation in
payment case and the interpleader case.
Zuellig is not a party to the nullification case
filed in the Davao trial court. There is also
no identity of rights asserted and reliefs
prayed for. Petitioner filed the first case to
nullify the deed of dation in payment it
executed in favor of PBCOM. Zuellig
subsequently filed the interpleader case to
consign in court the rental payments and
extinguish its obligation as lessee. The
interpleader case was necessary and was not
instituted to harass either Lui Enterprises or
PBCOM.

At any rate, an adverse claimant in an

interpleader case who fails to answer within
the required period may, on motion, be
declared in default pursuant to Section 5,
Rule 62. The consequence of the default is
that the court may render judgment barring
 Nevertheless, the PDB retained possession Later, BOC and PDB agreed to have an
4. Bank of Commerce v. Planters of the Detached Assignments. It is basically escrow agreement. The application for
Development Bank. September 24, the nature of this April 15 transaction that interpleader was granted but PDB
2012 the PDB and the BOC cannot agree on. questioned the counterclaim posed by BOC.
These CB Bills were transferred to other Then the court issued the questions orders.
Facts: Two consolidated petitions for review banks and finance institutions but were all
on certiorari under Rule 45,1 on pure later taken back by the BOC. PDB then filed ISSUE:
questions of law, filed by the petitioners a case to BSP to to give notification that
Bank of Commerce (BOC) and the Bangko those CB bills have been tainted fraudulent ON CONFLICTING CLAIMS SUBJECT
Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP). They assail the transactions and to record its claim in the OF THE INTERPLEADER SUIT, WHO
January 10, 2002 and July 23, 2002 Orders BSP’s books, explaining that its non- PAYS THE DOCKET FEES?
(assailed orders) of the Regional Trial Court possession of the CB bills is "on account of
(RTC) of Makati City, Branch 143, in Civil imperfect negotiations thereof and/or RULING:
Case Nos. 94-3233 and 94-3254. These subsequent setoff or transfer. However, BSP
orders dismissed * (i) the petition filed by officer Nugui declined invoking Section 8 of The conflicting claimants.
the Planters Development Bank (PDB), *(ii) CB Circular No. 28.
the "counterclaim" filed by the BOC, and Regardless of the nature of the BOC’s
*(iii) the counter-complaint/cross-claim for In light of these BSP responses and the "counterclaims," for purposes of payment of
interpleader filed bythe BSP; and denied the impending maturity of the CB bills, the PDB filing fees, both the BOC and the PDB,
BOC’s and the BSP’s motions for filed29 with the RTC two separate petitions properly as defendants-in-interpleader, must
reconsideration. In the case, 7 Central Bank for Mandamus, Prohibition and Injunction be assessed the payment of the correct
Bills with the value of 70 million were with prayer for Preliminary Injunction and docket fee arising from their respective
issued to RCBC, then RCBC sold the same Temporary Restraining Order which was claims. The seminal case of Sun Insurance
to BOC, later BOC transferred the same top later granted. Then BSP asked that an Office, Ltd. v. Judge Asuncion150 provides us
PDB. On April 15, 1994, the PDB, in turn, interpleader suit be allowed between and guidance in the payment of docket fees, to
sold to the BOC Treasury Bills worth ₱ 70 among the claimants to the subject CB bills wit:
million, with maturity date of June 29, 1994, on the position that while it is able and
as evidenced by a Trading Order8 and a willing to pay the subject CB bills’ face 1. x x x Where the filing of the
Confirmation of Sale. However, instead of value, it is duty bound to ensure that initiatory pleading is not
delivering the Treasury Bills, the PDB payment is made to the rightful owner. The accompanied by payment of the
delivered the seven CB bills to the BOC, as PDB agreed with the BSP’s alternative docket fee, the court may allow
evidenced by a PDB Security Delivery response for an interpleader. payment of the fee within a
Receipt. reasonable time but in no case
beyond the applicable prescriptive or
reglementary period.

2. The same rule applies to

permissive counterclaims, third-party
claims and similar pleadings, which
 shall not be considered filed until
and unless the filing fee prescribed
therefor is paid. The court may also
allow payment of said fee within a
reasonable time but also in no case
beyond its applicable prescriptive or
reglementary period. [underscoring
ours]

This must be the rule considering that

Section 7, Rule 62 of which reads:

SEC. 7. Docket and other lawful fees, costs

and litigation expenses as liens. – The
docket and other lawful fees paid by the
party who filed a complaint under this Rule,
as well as the costs and litigation expenses,
shall constitute a lien or charge upon the
subject matter of the action unless the court
shall order otherwise.

 Since the defendants-in-interpleader are

actually the ones who make a claim - only
that it was extraordinarily done through the
procedural device of interpleader - then to
them devolves the duty to pay the docket
fees prescribed under Rule 141 of the Rules
of Court, as amended
 H), wherein it appears that she is the wife of and it is hereby ordered that the
Rule 63 a Filipino citizen. Petitioner and his family Commissioner of Immigration cancel the
lived in Himamaylan, where he operated a Alien Certificate of Registration of
5. Santiago v. Commissioner of sari-sari store. During the Japanese Residence No. 197013 of the petitioner
Immigration, January 31, 1963 occupation, he and his family evacuated to Ricardo Santiago in the files of the
the swamps. After liberation they stayed for Immigration Office, without pronouncement
On June 15, 1957 Ricardo Santiago filed in a short time in Andangan, Quezon, where as to costs."cralaw virtua1aw library
the Court of First Instance of Negros they engaged in the copra business. In 1956
Occidental a petition praying that he be he and his family returned to Bacolod. In The provincial fiscal, in representation of the
declared a Philippine citizen and that an August 1957 they transferred to Sipalay, Solicitor- General, moved for
order be issued cancelling his alien Negros Occidental, where they had been reconsideration on the ground that an action
certificate of registration, alleged by him to living up to the time of the hearing. Aside for declaratory relief is not the proper
have been erroneously entered in the Bureau from the son born to him and his wife in remedy for removing doubts as to
of Immigration. The petition was China, they have five other children born in citizenship. Finding this motion to be well-
subsequently amended to make the the Philippines. In spite of petitioner’s founded, the court, on June 14, 1958, set
Commissioner of Immigration a Respondent. alleged Filipino citizenship, his father, aside its order of March 19. Petitioner
before the latter’s death in 1928, erroneously moved for reconsideration of this second
During the hearing petitioner presented registered him as an alien. The registration order and for reinstatement of the first,
evidence to prove the following: On was periodically renewed thereafter, the last amending it, however, by having the
September 28, 1904, in La Carlota, Negros being in 1950, when Alien Certificate of declaration of his Filipino citizenship
Occidental, he was born out of wedlock to Registration No. 97013, Exhibit M, the one eliminated.
Apolonia Andrade, Filipina, and Tomas now sought to be cancelled, was issued to
Santiago, Chinese, who could not marry him. ISSUE:
each other because the latter had a lawfully
wedded wife in China. When he was four, Based on the above evidence, the lower WHETHER OR NOT DECLARATORY
his father sent him on a vacation to China. court, on March 19, 1958, issued an order, RELIEF IS THE PROPER REMEDY IN
Upon return to the Philippines in 1915 he the dispositive part of which SEEKING A DECLARATION OF
was issued Landing Certificate of Residence follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph ONE’S STATUS OR CITIZENSHIP
No. 13939 (Exhibit G) wherein it appears
that he is a Filipino. In 1924 he went back to "Wherefore, the Court finds that the RULING:
China and there married a Chinese woman, petitioner has established the allegations
Ty Sek Nio, whom he brought to the contained in his amended petition and NO.
Philippines in 1925 and who was granted following the ruling in U.S. v. Ong Tian Se,
Landing Certificate of Residence No. 69033 29 Phil. 352; Santos Ko v. P.P.I. 52 Phil. Appellant contends that appellee’s petition is
(Exhibit 562; and in the case of Luis Serra, G.R. No. one for declaratory relief, a remedy not
L-4223, May 12, 1952, it is hereby declared available in seeking a declaration of one’s
that the petitioner Ricardo Santiago is a status or citizenship. On the other hand,
Filipino citizen, appellee argues that his suit is merely for the
cancellation of his alien certificate of
registration. 1961):jgc:chanrobles.com.ph or single, or a legitimate child, although a
finding thereon may be made as a necessary
In his original petition appellee prayed, inter "Declaratory relief in this jurisdiction is a premise to justify a given relief available
alia, that the court "declare him as a Filipino special civil action which may lie only when only to one enjoying said status. At times,
citizen." This portion of the prayer was, ‘any person interested under a deed, will, the law permits the acquisition of a given
however, omitted from his amended petition, contract or other written instrument, or status, such as naturalization, by judicial
leaving only that asking for cancellation of whose rights are affected by statute or decree. But, there is no similar legislation
his alien certificate of registration. The ordinance,’ demands construction thereof for authorizing the institution of a judicial
original petition appears to be in the nature a declaration of his rights thereunder. None proceeding to declare that a given person is
of a proceeding for declaratory relief, of the above circumstances exists in the case part of our citizenry.’ (Tan v. Republic, G.R.
although it is not captioned as such. And under consideration. And this Court has No. L-14159, April 18, 1960, reiterated on
while the amended petition does not ask for already held that there is no proceeding G.R. No. L-15775 April 29, 1961)."cralaw
declaration of Filipino citizenship, the plea established by law or the rules by which any virtua1aw library
is implicit in the prayer for cancellation of person claiming to be a citizen may get a
the appellee’s alien certificate of declaration in a court of justice to that effect The lower court based the appealed order on
registration, for the cancellation cannot be or in regard to his citizenship. the cases of U.S. v. Ong Tian Se, 29 Jur. Fil.
based on any other ground other than that 352; Santos Co v. P.P.I., 52 Jur. Fil. 562;
appellee is a Filipino citizen. ‘Under our laws, there can be no action or Luis Serra contra Republica de Filipinas,
proceeding for the judicial declaration of the G.R. No. L-4223, May 12, 1952, which
The lower court itself, in its original order, citizenship of an individual. Courts of justice appellee now invokes. The cited cases are
made such a declaration of appellee’s exist for the settlement of justifiable inapplicable herein. The Ong Tian Se case
citizenship, although when it reinstated the controversies, which imply a given right, was for the deportation of one who,
order after having first set it aside, the legally demandable and enforceable, an act however, successfully alleged that he was a
declaration was eliminated, thereby leaving or omission violative of said right, and a Filipino citizen. The Santos Co and Serra
without support its order for cancellation of remedy, granted or sanctioned by law, for cases were both for naturalization of person
appellee’s alien certificate of registration. said breach of right. As an accident only of whose evidence showed they were born
the adjudication of the rights of the parties to Filipinos and therefore need not be
In any event, whether or not appellee’s suit a controversy, the court may pass upon, and naturalized. The nature of action or
is interpreted as one for declaratory relief, make a pronouncement relative to, their proceeding in each of said cases is entirely
what seems clear is that, directly or status. Otherwise, such a pronouncement is different from the present one.
indirectly, he seeks a declaration of his beyond judicial power.
supposed Philippine citizenship. Thus, sufficiency or probative value of
evidence, declaration of Philippine
There is no proceeding, by declaratory relief citizenship, determination of Hereditary rihts
1 or otherwise 2 available for the express and status, court decision and resolutions
purpose of obtaining a judicial declaration to may not be the subject matter of an action
that effect. This was the ruling of this Court Thus, for instance, no action or proceeding for declaratory relief.
in Eleuteria Feliseta Tan v. Republic (G. R. may be instituted for a declaration to the
No. L-16108, October 31, effect that plaintiff or petitioner is married, Having concluded that the remedy sought by
appellee is not proper, it is unnecessary to
determine whether or not the evidence
proves that he is a Filipino.

The order appealed from is hereby reversed

and the petition is dismissed, with costs.
 The court sustained the motion holding that legal interest in the controversy; chan
“An action for declaratory relief just for the roblesvirtualawlibraryand (4) the issue
6. Edades v. Edades, 52 OG 5149 purpose of clearing away doubt, uncertainty, involved must be ripened for judicial
or insecurity to the Plaintiff’s status or rights determination. (Tolentino vs. Board of
would seem to be improper and outside the Accountancy, 90 Phil., 83).
Plaintiff brought this action before the Court
purview of a declaratory relief. Neither can
of First Instance of Pangasinan seeking a The present case does not come within the
it be availed of for the purpose of
declaratory judgment on his hereditary rights purview of the law authorizing an action for
compelling recognition of such rights, if
in the property of his alleged father and declaratory relief for it neither concerns a
disputed or objected to.” Consequently, the
incidentally the recognition of his status as deed, will, contract or other written
court dismissed the complaint, without costs.
an illegitimate son of Emigdio Edades. instrument, nor does it affect a statute or
From the order of dismissal, Plaintiff has ordinance, the construction or validity of
In his complaint, he alleges that he is an appealed and the case was certified to this which is involved. Nor is it predicated on
illegitimate son of Emigdio Edades with court because only questions of law are any justiciable controversy for admittedly
Maria de Venecia, having been born when involved in the appeal. the alleged rights of inheritance
said Emigdio Edades was legally married to
ISSUE: which Plaintiff desires to assert against
Maxima Edades with whom Emigdio had
the Defendants as basis of the relief he is
eight legitimate children; chan WHETHER OR NOT THE ACTION
seeking for have not yet accrued for the
roblesvirtualawlibrarythat he had always FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF IS
simple reason that his alleged father
enjoyed the continuous and uninterrupted PROPER.
Emigdio Edades has not yet died. In fact, he
possession of the status of illegitimate child RULING: is one of the herein Defendants. And the law
by direct and positive acts of his father and
NO. is clear that “the rights to the succession are
of the legitimate children of the latter; chan
transmitted from the moment of the death of
roblesvirtualawlibrarythat as such Under the law, an action for declaratory the decedent” (Article 777, new Civil Code).
illegitimate child he is entitled to share in relief is proper when any person is interested Up to that moment, the right to succession is
the inheritance of his father under the “under a deed, will, contract or other written merely speculative for, in the meantime, the
law; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand that as instrument, or whose rights are affected by a law may change, the will of the testator may
the legitimate children of his father will statute or ordinance” in order to determine vary, or the circumstances may be modified
deny, as in fact they have denied his right to any question of construction or validity to such an extent that he who expects to
inherit, and such denial may ripen into a arising under the instrument or statute, or to receive property may be deprived of it.
costly litigation, he brought the present declare his rights or duties thereunder Indeed, the moment of death is the
action for the determination of his hereditary (section 1, Rule 66). Moreover, the action determining point when an heir acquires a
rights. should be predicated on the following definite right to the inheritance (5 Manresa,
Defendants, instead of answering, filed a conditions:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary (1) 5th ed., 324). This action therefore cannot be
motion to dismiss on the ground that the there must be a justiciable controversy; chan maintained if considered strictly as one for
complaint does not state facts sufficient to roblesvirtualawlibrary(2) the controversy declaratory relief.
constitute a cause of action. must be between persons whose interest are
adverse; chan roblesvirtualawlibrary(3) the
party seeking declaratory relief must have a
But the present action, though captioned as This right is impliedly recognized by Article
one for declaratory relief, is not merely 289 which permits the investigation of the
aimed at determining the hereditary right of paternity or maternity of an illegitimate
the Plaintiff to eventually preserve his right child in the same manner as in the case of a
to the property of his alleged father, but natural child. Considering that the rules of
rather to establish his status as illegitimate procedure shall be liberally construed to
child in order that, should his father die, his promote their object and avoid an expensive
right to inherit may, not be disputed, as at litigation (section 2, Rule 1), we hold that
present, by the other Defendants who are the the present action may be maintained in the
legitimate children of his father. light of the view herein expressed.
Thus, sufficiency or probative value of Wherefore, the order appealed from is
evidence, declaration of Philippine revoked. The case is remanded to the trial
citizenship, determination of Hereditary rihts court for further proceedings in connection
and status, court decision and resolutions with the determination of the alleged status
may not be the subject matter of an action of the Plaintiff as an illegitimate son of
for declaratory relief. Emigdio Edades, without pronouncements
as to costs.

In fact, in paragraph 2 of complainant’s

prayer he asks that Defendants be ordered to
recognize his status as illegitimate child with
right to inherit. It is true that there is no
express provision in the new Civil Code
which prescribe the step that may be taken
to establish such status as in case of a natural
child who can bring an action for
recognition (Article 285), but this silence
notwithstanding, we declare that a similar
action may be brought under similar
circumstances considering that an
illegitimate child other than natural is now
given successional rights and there is need to
establish his status before such rights can be
asserted and enforced.
 The Department also inquired with the before the RTC. The respondent asked the
7. DILG v. Gatuz, October 14, 2015 Ombudsman about the effect of this Court's RTC to explain his rights pending the
ruling in the then recent case of Office of the resolution of his motion for reconsideration
In 2008, the respondent, Raul Gatuz, was the Ombudsman v. Samaniego.4Samaniego held and to restrain the Department from
Barangay Captain of Barangay Tabang, that in administrative cases where the implementing his suspension. The
Plaridel, Bulacan. Ombudsman imposes a penalty other than respondent argued that the filing of a motion
public censure or reprimand, suspension of for reconsideration or an appeal
On February 21, 2008, Felicitas L. Domingo not more than one month, or a fine not automatically stays the execution of the
filed an administrative complaint before the equivalent to one month salary, the filing of Ombudsman's decisions in administrative
Office of the Ombudsman against the an appeal stays the execution of the cases pursuant to Samaniego and Lapid v.
respondent for Abuse of Authority and decision. Court of Appeals.6 The petition was
Dishonesty. The complaint was docketed docketed as Civil Case No. 808-M-2009.
as Administrative Case No. OMB-L-A-08- On July 10, 2009, the Ombudsman denied
0126-C. the reconsideration prayed for.
ISSUE:
In a decision dated November 17, 2008, the On September 22, 2009, the Office of the
Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon Ombudsman answered the Department's WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITION
found the respondent guilty of Dishonesty inquiry and pointed out its Memorandum FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF IS
and imposed the penalty of three months Circular (MC) No. 1, Series of 2006. The PROPER.
suspension without pay.3 MC states that the filing of a motion for
reconsideration or a petition for review of RULING:
On May 20, 2009, the Deputy Ombudsman the decisions, orders, or resolutions of the NO
for Luzon indorsed its decision to the Ombudsman does not stay its
Secretary of the Interior and Local implementation unless a temporary The respondent cites the cases of Office of
Government for immediate implementation. restraining order (TRO) or a writ of the Ombudsman v. Hon. Ibay7 and Marquez
injunction is in force. v. Ombudsman Desierto8 to support his
The Department received the indorsement argument that the RTC has jurisdiction over
on May 29, 2009. On October 22, 2009, the Department issued actions for declaratory relief with injunction
a memorandum5 addressed to the DILG against the Office of the Ombudsman.9 The
On June 30, 2009, the respondent received a Regional Director for Region III, directing respondent maintains that the controversy
copy of the Deputy Ombudsman's decision. him to implement the respondent's concerns the extent of the Department's
The respondent moved for reconsideration suspension. power to implement the decision of the
on July 7, 2009. Ombudsman pending resolution of his
On November 17, 2009, the respondent filed motion for reconsideration in the light of this
The Department deferred the a Petition for Declaratory Relief and Court's rulings in Lapid and Samaniego. He
implementation of the decision in view of Injunction with a Prayer for a Temporary posits that the controversy was a proper
the respondent's pending motion for Restraining Order or a writ of Preliminary subject of declaratory relief.
reconsideration. Injunction
We disagree with the respondent as the facts
of Marquez and Ibay are considerably permitted to litigate the same issue more in disciplinary cases.
different from the present case. than once. Judgment rendered by a court or a
quasi-judicial body is conclusive on the Finally, we already reconsidered the 2008
Marquez and Ibay both involved Lourdes parties subject only to appellate authority. Samaniego decision in our
Marquez, a bank manager, who was ordered The losing party cannot modify or escape
by the Ombudsman to produce bank the effects of judgment under the guise of an resolution dated October 5, 2010.18 We
documents in relation with certain bank action for declaratory relief. unanimously held en bane that the decisions
accounts under investigation. Faced with the of the Ombudsman in disciplinary cases are
dilemma of violating the Bank Secrecy Law, Another reason why judicial or quasi- immediately executory and cannot be stayed
on one hand, and the threat of being cited in judicial orders or decisions cannot be the by the filing of an appeal or the issuance of
direct contempt by the Ombudsman on the subject matter of declaratory relief is the an injunctive writ.19 This legal question has
other, Marquez filed a petition for doctrine of judicial stability or been settled with finality.
declaratory relief before the RTC. In both noninterference. Courts and tribunals with
cases, we upheld the jurisdiction of the RTC the same or equal authority - even those All things considered, the RTC clearly erred
over the action for declaratory relief and exercising concurrent and coordinate in taking cognizance of the petition for
injunction. However, our rulings in jurisdiction are not permitted to interfere declaratory relief and in restraining the
Marquez and Ibay only related to the with each other's respective cases, much less execution of the Ombudsman's decision.
investigatory power of the Ombudsman. their orders or judgments.13 This is an
elementary principle of higher importance WHEREFORE, the petition
As the respondent himself admits, the DILG essential to the orderly administration of is GRANTED. We
Memorandum subject of his petition for justice.14 Its observance is not required on hereby REVERSE and SET ASIDE the
declaratory relief was an implementation of the grounds of judicial comity and courtesy decision of the Regional Trial Court of
the Ombudsman's decision in OMB-L-A-08- alone; it is enforced to prevent unseemly, Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 19 in Civil Case
0126-C: the memorandum was in the nature expensive, and dangerous conflicts of No. 808-M-2009.
of a writ of execution. Therefore, the jurisdiction and of processes.15
declaratory relief action was essentially SO ORDERED.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
against a quasi-judicial action of the Where the decisions of certain
Ombudsman - a subject matter beyond the administrative bodies are appealable to the
RTC's declaratory relief jurisdiction. Court of Appeals, these adjudicative bodies
are co-equal with the Regional Trial Courts
Court orders or decisions cannot be the in terms of rank and stature; their actions are
subject matter of declaratory relief. 10 They logically beyond the control of the RTC, a
are not included within the purview of the co-equal body.16 Notably, the decisions of
words "other written instrument."11 The the Ombudsman in disciplinary cases are
same principle applies to orders, resolutions, appealable to the CA via a Petition for
or decisions of quasi-judicial bodies. Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of
Court.17 As a co-equal body, the RTC has no
The fundamental rationale for this is the jurisdiction to interfere with or to restrain
principle of res judicata.12 Parties are not the execution of the Ombudsman's decisions
 P15,743.83. Pursuant to this decision, the The petitioners argued that RTC, Branch 33,
8. Tambunting v. Baello, September respondents made a consignation with the erred when it ordered the consignation of
16, 2015 RTC in said amount. P15k. As earlier pointed out, the action in
first case was for declaratory relief. But
FACTS: Facts: Spouses Sumabat and After almost 14 years, or on Feb 1995, CHFI petitioner points out the fact that
Baello were the registered land owners of a again foreclosed on the contested land. The respondents are not entitled anymore to file
parcel of land in Caloocan. In May 1973, respondents came to know of this because an action for declaratory relief because there
and in order to obtain a P7,727.95 loan from they received a notice of foreclosure sale, to had already been a violation of the
petitioner Tambunting, the spouses be conducted by the sheriff, of the land in mortgaged contract when the spouses
mortgaged said land to the former. question defaulted on their amortizations.
Subsequently, Tambunting assigned his This time, the petitioners filed an action with Furthermore the action for foreclosure by
rights to the mortgaged to Commercial Branch 120 of the RTC of Caloocan for CHFI on 1995 has already prescribed
House Finance (CHFI). And because injunction against the foreclosure sale. But,
respondent spouses have not been paying the sale still pushed thru, with CHFI being ISSUE:
their monthly amortizations, they were declared the highest bidder. A new TCT was
informed that their indebtedness has then issued to CHFI. Thus, respondent WHETHER OR NOT THE
ballooned to P15k. spouses amended their complaint to an FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING WAS
action for nullification of the BARRED BY THE JUDGMENT IN THE
And so, CHFI and Tambunting filed a case foreclosure/sheriff’s sale, the new TCT of DECLARATORY RELIEF CASE.
for foreclosure but was restrained by Branch CHFI, as well as reconveyance.
33 of the RTC of Caloocan. The reason for On Feb 2000, Branch 120 of the RTC RULING:
the restraint was because the respondents declared the foreclosure sale as void. It
were able to file an action for declaratory likewise ruled that reconveyance of the NO.
relief with said RTC. In their action, property should be made to the respondents.
respondents were praying that the court rule This decision was grounded on the fact that An action for declaratory relief should be
on the extent or amount of their actual consignation of P15k has already been made filed by a person interested under a deed,
indebtedness. by CHFI pursuant to the earlier decision of will, contract or other written instrument,
the Branch 33 of the RTC. and whose rights are affected by a statute,
In said RTC case, which was filed March After a denial of petitioner’Si MR, they executive order, regulation or ordinance
1979, herein petitioners were declared in filed petition for review on certiorari with before breach or violation thereof. The
default. Thus, even when the Tambunting, et the SC. purpose of the action is to secure an
al moved for the dismissal of the case on the authoritative statement of the rights and
ground that “mortgaged deed/contract had obligations of the parties under a statute,
already been breached prior to the action”, deed, contract, etc. for their guidance in its
said motion was denied for having been filed enforcement or compliance and not to settle
out of time. issues arising from its alleged breach. It may
On Jan. 1981, the RTC rendered a decision be entertained only before the breach or
finding that respondents liability, by virtue violation of the statute, deed, contract, etc. to
of their mortgage deed/contract, was which it refers. Where the law or contract
has already been contravened prior to the
filing of an action for declaratory relief, the
court can no longer assume jurisdiction over
the action.
Nonetheless, the petition must fail.

Article 1142 of the Civil Code is clear. A

mortgage action prescribes after ten years.
Here, petitioners’ right of action accrued in
May 1977 when respondents defaulted in
their obligation to pay their loan
amortizations. It was from that time that the
ten-year period to enforce the right under the
mortgage started to run. The period was
interrupted when respondents filed Civil
Case No. C-6329 sometime after May 1977
and the CFI restrained the intended
foreclosure of the property. However, the
period commenced to run again on
November 9, 1977 when the case was
dismissed.
A. Nature of Declaratory Relief:
An action for declaratory relief should be
filed by a person interested under a deed,
will, contract or other written instrument,
and whose rights are affected by a statute,
executive order, regulation or ordinance
before breach or violation thereof.
B. Purpose of Declaratory Relief:
The purpose of the action is to secure an
authoritative statement of the rights and
obligations of the parties under a statute,
deed, contract, etc. for their guidance in its
enforcement or compliance and not to settle
issues arising from its alleged breach.2 It
may be entertained only before the breach or
violation of the statute, deed, contract, etc. to
which it refers.
 Petitioner appealed the denial action to the RULING:
9. Aquino v. Municipality of Malay – Office of the Mayor but despite follow up,
Aklan, September 29, 2014 no action was ever taken by the respondent NO.
mayor. A Cease and Desist Order was issued
Petitioner is the president and chief by the municipal government, enjoining the An action for DR presupposes that there has
executive officer of Boracay Island West expansion of the resort, and on June 7, 2011, been an actual breach of the instruments
Cove Management Philippines, Inc. the Office of the Mayor of Malay, Aklan involved or of the rights arising thereunder.
(Boracay West Cove). On January 7, 2010, issued the assailed EO 10, ordering the
the company applied for a zoning closure and demolition of Boracay West Since in the case, the petition for DR
compliance with the municipal government Cove’s hotel. became unavailable by EO 10’s enforcement
of Malay, Aklan.2 While the company was and implementation to which the closure and
already operating a resort in the area, and the Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with demolition of the hotel rendered futile any
application sought the issuance of a building prayer for injunctive relief with the CA possible guidelines that may be issued by the
permit covering the construction of a three- Alleging that the order was issued and trial court for carrying out the directives in
storey hotel over a parcel of land measuring executed with grave abuse of discretion. the challenged EO. Therefore, the CA erred
998 sqm. located in Sitio Diniwid, Barangay that DR is the proper remedy.
Balagab, Boracay Island, Malay, Aklan, The CA dismissed the petition on the ground
which is covered by a Forest Land Use that the special writ of certiorari can only be
Agreement for Tourism Purposes (FLAgT) directed against a tribunal, board or officer
issued by the Department of Environment exercising judicial or quasi-judicial function
and Natural Resources (DENR) in favor of and since the issuance of EO 10 was done in
Boracay West Cove. the exercise of executive functions,
certiorari will not lie. Instead, the proper
Through a Decision on Zoning dated remedy according to the CA is to file a
January 20, 2010, the Municipal Zoning petition for declaratory relief with the RTC.
Administrator denied petitioner’s application
on the ground that the proposed construction ISSUE:
site was within the “no build zone”
demarcated in Municipal Ordinance 2000- WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITION
131 (Ordinance). FOR DECLATORY RELIEF IS
PROPER.
 specific bank records prior to the issuance of comply as directed, private respondent was
10. Office of the Ombudsman v. Ibay, the required information not in any manner ordered to show cause why she should not
GR No. 137538, September 3, 2001 needed in or relevant to the investigation. 1 be cited for contempt and why she should
not be charged for obstruction. 3
Sometime in 1998, petitioner conducted an Private respondent failed to comply with
investigation on the alleged "scam" on the petitioner’s order. She explained that the Instead of complying with the order of
Public Estates Authority-Amari Coastal Bay subject accounts pertain to International petitioner, private respondent filed a petition
Development Corporation. The case, entitled Corporate Bank (Interbank) which merged for declaratory relief with an application for
Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau v. with Union Bank in 1994. She added that temporary restraining order and/or
Amadeo Lagdameo, Et Al., was docketed as despite diligent efforts, the bank could not preliminary injunction before the Regional
OMB-0-97-0411. Initial result of the identify these accounts since the checks Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 135,
investigation revealed that the alleged were issued in cash or bearer forms. She presided by respondent Judge Francisco
anomaly was committed through the informed petitioner that she had to first Ibay. The petition was docketed as Civil
issuance of checks which were subsequently verify from the Interbank records in its Case No. 98-1585. In her petition, private
deposited in several financial institutions. archives the whereabouts of said accounts. 2 respondent averred that under Sections 2 and
On April 29, 1998, petitioner issued an 3 of R.A. 1405 (Law on Secrecy of Bank
Order directing private respondent Lourdes Petitioner found private respondent’s Deposits), she had the legal obligation not to
Marquez, branch manager of Union Bank of explanation unacceptable. Petitioner divulge any information relative to all
the Philippines branch at Julia Vargas reminded private respondent that her acts deposits of whatever nature with banks in
Avenue, Pasig City, to produce several bank constitute disobedience or resistance to a the Philippines. But petitioner’s Order cited
documents for inspection relative to Account lawful order and is punishable as indirect Section 15(8) of R.A. 6770 stating that the
Nos. 011-37270-5, 240-020718, 245-30317- contempt under Section 3 (b), Rule 71 of the Ombudsman had the power to examine and
3 and 245-30318-1, reportedly maintained in Revised Rules of Court, in relation to have access to bank accounts and records.
the said branch. The documents referred to Section 15 (9) of R.A. 6770 (Ombudsman Private respondent, therefore, sought a
include bank account application forms, Act of 1989). The same might also definite ruling and/or guidelines as regards
signature cards, transactions history, bank constitute willful obstruction of the lawful her rights as well as petitioner’s power to
statements, bank ledgers, debit and credit exercise of the functions of the Ombudsman, inspect bank deposits under the cited
memos, deposit and withdrawal slips, which is punishable under Section 36 of provisions of law. Meanwhile, private
application for purchase of manager’s R.A. 6770. On June 16, 1998, petitioner respondent filed with this Court a petition
checks, used manager’s checks and check issued an order to private respondent to for certiorari and prohibition, assailing
microfilms. The inspection would be done produce the requested bank documents for petitioner’s order to institute indirect
"in camera" wherein the bank records would "in camera" inspection. In the event of her contempt proceedings against her. 4
be examined without bringing the failure to
documents outside the bank premises. Its Petitioner moved to dismiss the aforesaid
purpose was to identify the petition for declaratory relief on the ground
that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the
subject matter thereof.

ISSUE:
 discretion in entertaining the cited petition Similarly, the Rules of Court is explicit that
WHETHER OR NOT THE RTC HAS for declaratory relief.chanrob1es virtua1 such action shall be brought before the
JURISDICTION OVER AN ACTION 1aw 1ibrary appropriate Regional Trial Court. Section 1,
FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF. Rule 63 of the Rules of Court
Petitioner contends that the RTC of Makati provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
RULING: City lacks jurisdiction over the petition for
declaratory relief. It asserts that respondent SECTION 1. Who may file petition. — Any
Yes. judge should have dismissed the petition person interested under a deed, will, contract
outright in view of Section 14 of R.A. 6770. or other written instrument, whose rights are
In an order dated August 19, 1998, now affected by a statute, executive order or
being assailed, public respondent denied Section 14 of R.A. 6770 regulation, ordinance, or any other
petitioner’s motion to dismiss. Petitioner provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library governmental regulation may, before breach
then filed an ex-parte motion for extended or violation thereof, bring an action in the
ruling. On December 22, 1998, public Restrictions. — No writ of injunction shall appropriate Regional Trial Court to
respondent issued an order declaring that it be issued by any court to delay an determine any question of construction or
has jurisdiction over the case since it is an investigation being conducted by the validity arising, and for a declaration of his
action for declaratory relief under Rule 63 of Ombudsman under this Act unless there is a rights or duties, thereunder.
the Rules of Court.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw prima facie evidence that the subject matter
1ibrary of the investigation is outside the x         x        x
jurisdiction of the Office of the
Seasonably, petitioner filed before this Court Ombudsman.
the instant petition assailing the Orders The requisites of an action for declaratory
dated August 19, 1998 and December 22, No court shall hear any appeal or application relief are: (1) there must be a justiciable
1998 of public respondent on the ground that for remedy against the decision or findings controversy; (2) the controversy must be
public respondent assumed jurisdiction over of the Ombudsman, except the Supreme between persons whose interests are
the case and issued orders with grave abuse Court, on pure question of law. adverse; (3) that the party seeking the relief
of discretion and clear lack of jurisdiction. has a legal interest in the controversy; and
Petitioner sought the nullification of the Petitioner’s invocation of the aforequoted (4) that the issue is ripe for judicial
impugned orders the immediate dismissal of statutory provision is misplaced. The special determination. 7 In this case, the controversy
Civil Case No. 98-1585, and the prohibition civil action of declaratory relief falls under concerns the extent of the power of
of it lacks jurisdiction over public the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional petitioner to examine bank accounts under
respondent from exercising jurisdiction on Trial Courts. 5 It is not among the actions Section 15 (8) of R.A. 6770 vis-a-vis the
the investigation being conducted by within the original jurisdiction of the duty of banks under Republic Act 1405 not
petitioner in the alleged PEA-AMARI land Supreme Court even if only questions of law to divulge any information relative to
"scam" . are involved. 6 deposits of whatever nature. The interests of
the parties are adverse considering the
The only question raised by petitioner for antagonistic assertion of a legal right on one
resolution public whether or not public hand, that is the power of Ombudsman to
respondent acted without jurisdiction and examine bank deposits, and on the other, the
denial thereof apparently by private before a court of competent authority, but
respondent who refused to allow petitioner only an investigation by the Ombudsman on
to inspect in camera certain bank accounts. the so-called "scam", any order for the
The party seeking relief, private respondent opening of the bank account for inspection is
herein, asserts a legal interest in the clearly premature and legally
controversy. The issue invoked is ripe for unjustified.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
judicial determination as litigation is
inevitable. Note that the petitioner has BEING AN ACTION INCAPABLE OF
threatened private respondent with "indirect PECUNIARY ESTIMATION, THE RTC
contempt" and "obstruction" charges should HAS JURISDICTION.
the latter not comply with its
order.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is
Circumstances considered, we hold that DISMISSED.
public respondent has jurisdiction to take
cognizance of the petition for declaratory SO ORDERED.
relief. Nor can it be said that public
respondent gravely abused its discretion in
doing so. We are thus constrained to dismiss
the instant petition for lack of merit.

In any event, the relief being sought by

private respondent in her action for
declaratory relief before the RTC of Makati
City has been squarely addressed by our
decision in Marquez v. Desierto 8 In that
case, we ruled that before an in camera
inspection of bank accounts may be allowed,
there must be a pending case before a court
of competent jurisdiction. Further, the
account must be clearly identified, and the
inspection limited to the subject matter of
the pending case before the court of
competent jurisdiction. The bank personnel
and the account holder must be notified to
be present during the inspection, and such
inspection may cover only the account
identified in the pending case. In the present
case, since there is no pending litigation yet
 Following similar action taken
11. Alliance of Government Workers in Nacionalista Party v. Angelo Bautista (85
v. Minister of Labor, 124 SCRA 7 ISSUE: Phil. 101) and Aquino v. Commission on
Elections (62 SCRA 275) we have, however,
Petitioner Alliance of Government Workers WHETHER OR NOT THE SUPREME decided to treat the petition as one for
(AGW) is a registered labor federation while COURT CAN TAKE COGNIZANCE mandamus. The petition has far reaching
the other petitioners are its affiliate unions OVER THE CASE. implications and raises questions that should
with members from among the employees of be resolved. Have the respondents
the following offices, schools, or RULING: unlawfully excluded the petitioners from the
government owned or controlled use and enjoyment of rights to which they
corporations: YES. are entitled under the law?

On February 28, 1983, the Philippine At the outset, the petitioners are faced with a An analysis of the "whereases" of P.D. No.
Government Employees Association procedural barrier. The petition is one for 851 shows that the President had in mind
(PGEA) filed a motion to come in as an declaratory relief, an action not embraced only workers in private employment when
additional petitioner. within the original jurisdiction of the he issued the decree. There was no intention
Supreme Court. (Remotigue v. Osmena,, Jr., to cover persons working in the government
According to the petitioners, P.D. No. 851 21 SCRA 837; Rural Bank of Olongapo v. service.
requires all employers to pay the 13th-month Commission of Land Registration, 102
pay to their employees with one sole SCRA 794; De la Llana v. Alba, 112 SCRA Thus, if the petition has a far-reaching
exception found in Section 2 which states 294). There is no statutory or jurisprudential implications and raises questions that should
that "(E)mployers already paying their basis for the petitioners' statement that the be resolved, the Supreme Court may treat
employees a 13th month pay or its Supreme Court has original and exclusive the petition as one for prohibition or
equivalent are not covered by this Decree. " jurisdiction over declaratory relief suits mandamus and take cognizance thereof.
The petitioners contend that Section 3 of the where only questions of law are involved.
Rules and Regulations Implementing Jurisdiction is conferred by law. The
Presidential Decree No. 851 included other petitioners have not pointed to any provision
types of employers not exempted by the of the Constitution or statute which sustains
decree. They state that nowhere in the their sweeping assertion. On this ground
decree is the secretary, now Minister of alone, the petition could have been
Labor and Employment, authorized to dismissed outright.
exempt other types of employers from the
requirement.
 its benefits only to those engaged in the law in question. In order that an action for
profession of accountancy. declaratory relief may be entertained, it must
12. Tolentino v. Board of Accountancy, be predicated on the following requisite
GR No. L-3062, September 28, 1951 It is obvious that he seeks the declaratory facts or conditions: (1) there must be a
relief not for his own personal benefit, or justiciable controversy; (2) the controversy
because his rights or prerogatives as an must be between persons whose interests are
Facts: Commonwealth Act No. 3105 was accountant, or as an individual, are adverse; (3) the party seeking declaratory
enacted. Section 16-A thereof, as amended adversely affected, but rather for the benefit relief must have a legal interest in the
by Commonwealth Act No. 342, authorized of persons belonging to other professions or controversy; and (4) the issue involved must
accountants to practice their profession callings, who are not parties to this case. He be ripe for judicial determination. These
under a trade name. Assailing the does not claim having suffered any prejudice requisite facts are wanting and, therefore,
constitutionality of the aforementioned or damage to him or to his rights or the complaint must fail for lack of sufficient
provision, plaintiff, an accountant, filed an prerogatives as an accountant by the use of cause of action.
action for declaratory relief in the CFI of the disputed name by the defendants. His
Manila on the ground advanced that the complaint is rather addressed against the
assailed provision is a class legislation since propriety of the use of said trade name by
by its terms it excludes persons engaged in the defendants because it is misleading and
other callings or professions from adopting, is liable to defraud the public.
acquiring or using a trade name in
connection with the practice of such callings
or professions. Included as defendants are
Robert Orr Ferguson, and Hans Hausamann,
foreign accountants practicing their
profession in the Philippines under the trade
name “Fleming and Williamson.”

Issue: Whether plaintiff has sufficient cause

of action to question the constitutionality of
Commonwealth Act No. 342?

Held: No, plaintiff has no sufficient cause of

action.

Plaintiff, therefore, has no actual justiciable

controversy against the herein defendants
Plaintiff’s main objection centers on the which may give him the right to secure relief
exclusive character of the law which extends by asserting the unconstitutionality of the
 taxes or fees assessed by Cagayan de Oro
13. City of Cagayan de Oro v. City.
CEPALCO, October 17, 2018
RTC dismissed the petition for declaratory
FACTS: relief due to CEPALCO's failure to exhaust
administrative remedies for its neglect to
Petitioner, through its local legislative appeal the ordinance to the Secretary of On account of the foregoing, it is clear
council, enacted Ordinance, which imposed Justice. that the ordinance in this case serves a
regulatory purpose and is, hence, an
an annual Mayor's Permit Fee of Five
exercise of police power. Nowhere in the
Hundred Pesos (P500.00) on every electric ISSUE: text of the ordinance is it shown that it
or telecommunications post belonging to was enacted to raise revenue.
public utility companies operating in the WHETHER OR NOT THE DISMISSAL
city. WAS PROPER. Thus, it can be concluded without
argument that the ordinance imposes
Respondent, Cagayan Electric Power & RULING: a fee since it was enacted pursuant
Light Co., Inc. (CEPALCO) is a public to the city's police power and serves
utility engaged in the distribution of electric No. to regulate, not to raise revenue.
power and the owner of utility poles erected
within Cagayan de Oro City. The ordinance Section 187 of the Local Government Proceeding to the question of non-
entailed them to pay an annual Mayor's Code, which outlines the administrative exhaustion, the Court rules
Permit Fee of P8,500,000.00.10. procedure for questioning the that ordinances that impose
constitutionality or legality of a tax regulatory fees do not need to be
ordinance or revenue measure, does not challenged before the Secretary of
CEPALCO thus filed a Petition for
find application in cases where the Justice.
Declaratory Relief with Damages & Prayer
imposition is in the nature of a
for Temporary Restraining Order &
regulatory fee.35 The provision requires
Preliminary Injunction before the Cagayan
that an appeal of a tax ordinance or
RTC assailing the ordinance's validity.  revenue measure should be made to the
Secretary of Justice within thirty (30)
CEPALCO contended that the imposition, in days from the effectivity of the
the guise of police power, was unlawful for ordinance.
violating the fundamental principle that fees,
charges, and other impositions shall not be
unjust, excessive, oppressive, or In the case at bar, the purpose of the
confiscatory. Additionally, CEPALCO ordinance is to regulate the
argued that, assuming the imposition was a construction and maintenance of
valid regulatory fee, it violated the electric and telecommunications
legislative franchise that specifically posts erected within Cagayan de Oro
exempted the electricity distributor from City.
 It appears that the re-computation was made Proceedings before the RTC
14. GSIS v. Daymiel, March 11, 2019 as a result of the implementation of Policy
and Procedural Guidelines No. 171-03 (PPG The RTC granted the Motion to Dismiss in a
No. 171-03) dated March 24, 2003 issued by Resolution dated November 8, 2004.11
On August 18, 1969, Apolinario K. Daymiel then GSIS President and General Manager
(respondent) served as a casual laborer of Winston F. Garcia. PPG No. 171-03 was ISSUE:
the Provincial Engineering Office of the subsequently approved by the GSIS Board
Provincial Government of Zamboanga del of Trustees in Resolution No. 90 dated April WHETHER OR NOT THE DISMISSAL
Norte. Eventually, respondent assumed the 2, 2003.6 WAS PROPER.
position of Accounting Clerk III until his
retirement on July 1, 2003.3 Respondent filed a Declaratory Relief, RULING:
Mandamus, and Damages.7 In his petition,
Thereupon, respondent applied for respondent interpreted the provisions of PPG NO.
retirement benefits before the Government No. 171-03 as gravely prejudicial to him
Service Insurance System (GSIS). A since the starting point in the computation of The core issue in this case is whether the
Tentative Computation was made pursuant the creditable service of a retiree shall be the regular court has jurisdiction over the
to respondent's application. Initially, GSIS date of the payment of monthly subject matter of the case.
granted respondent a total of 33.65678 years contributions,8 whereas the starting point as
of creditable service. The lump sum regards Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8291 or The Court's Ruling
payment was equivalent to P542,325.00 and The Government Service Insurance System
the monthly pension amounted to Act of 1997 is the date of original Jurisdiction over a subject matter is
P9,038.75,4viz.: appointment.9 conferred by the Constitution or the law, and
rules of procedure yield to substantive law.
However, a re-computation was made Instead of filing an answer, GSIS filed a Otherwise stated, jurisdiction must exist as a
wherein GSIS credited respondent only with Motion to Dismiss, citing the grounds of matter of law. Only a statute can confer
23.85082 years of service instead of the failure to state a cause of action and lack of jurisdiction on courts and administrative
initial 33.65678. Accordingly, respondent's jurisdiction over the subject matter. GSIS agencies.22 Administrative agencies may be
lump sum payment was decreased to argued that respondent failed to establish bestowed with quasi-judicial or quasi-
P384,295.80 and his monthly pension was how his right was violated and that R.A. No. legislative powers.
pegged at P5,886.77.5 8291 vests in the GSIS Board of Trustees
the original and exclusive jurisdiction to In the exercise of an administrative agency's
Unsatisfied with the computation, hear disputes on laws administered by it.10 quasi-judicial powers, the doctrine of
respondent wrote a letter to the GSIS and primary jurisdiction may be invoked. In the
inquired as to the legal basis for such case of Smart Communications, Inc. v.
computation. National Telecommunications
Commission,  we explained the import of
23

this doctrine, to wit:

Thus, in cases involving specialized recommendations thereon. The hearing (a) Separation benefits
disputes, the practice has been to refer the officer shall submit his findings and (b) Unemployment or involuntary separation
same to an administrative agency of special recommendations, together with all benefits
competence pursuant to the doctrine of documentary and testimonial evidence to the (c) Retirement benefits
primary jurisdiction. The courts will not [B]oard within thirty (30) working days (d) Disability benefits
determine a controversy involving a from the time the parties have closed their
question which is within the jurisdiction of respective evidence and filed their last xxxx
the administrative tribunal prior to the pleading. The Board shall decide the case
resolution of that question by the within thirty (30) days from the receipt of An appeal of the decision of the GSIS Board
administrative tribunal, where the question the hearing officer's findings and of Trustees may be filed with the
demands the exercise of sound recommendations. The cases heard directly CA via Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.24
administrative discretion requiring the by the Board shall be decided within thirty
special knowledge, experience and services (30) working days from the time they are However, the records of the case reveal that
of the administrative tribunal to determine submitted by the parties for decision. what the respondent is seeking for is the
technical and intricate matters of fact, and a nullification of PPG No. 171-03 and
uniformity of ruling is essential to comply xxxx Resolution No. 90 on the ground of
with the premises of the regulatory statute illegality. While respondent's contention
administered. x x x SEC. 14.3. Body Vested with Quasi-Judicial deals with a dispute as to the computation of
Functions. — The quasi-judicial function of his retirement benefits, his petition mainly
In this case, Section 30 of R.A. No. 8291 the GSIS shall be vested in its Board of attacks the legality of the assailed issuances,
vests upon the GSIS the original and Trustees. to wit:
exclusive jurisdiction to hear disputes
arising from said law or related issuances. Section 14.1 (now Section 21) of the IRR xxxx
Section 14.3 (now Section 27.1) of the provides in detail the coverage of such
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) quasi-judicial power, to wit: Consistent with the petition filed, the
of R.A. No. 8291 provides that such quasi- allegations partake of a petition for
judicial power lies with the GSIS Board of SEC. 14.1. Quasi-Judicial Functions of the declaratory relief under Rule 63 of the Rules
Trustees, thus: GSIS. — x x x settle any dispute arising of Court, to wit:
under Republic Act No. 8291,
SEC. 30. Settlement of Disputes. — The Commonwealth Act No. 186, as amended, SEC. 1. Who may file petition. — Any
GSIS shall have original and exclusive and other laws administered by the GSIS person interested under a deed, will, contract
jurisdiction to settle any dispute arising with respect to: or other written instrument, or whose rights
under this Act and any other laws are affected by a statute, executive order or
administered by the GSIS. xxxx regulation, ordinance, or any other
governmental regulation may, before breach
The Board may designate any member of the 2. Entitlement of members to the following or violation thereof, bring an action in the
Board, or official of the GSIS who is a benefits under these Rules: appropriate Regional Trial Court to
lawyer, to act as hearing officer to receive determine any question of construction or
evidence, make findings of fact and submit
validity arising, and for a declaration of his the respondent who seeks to claim his because the primary issue was the starting
rights or duties, thereunder. retirement benefits. point of the computation of the retirement
benefits.
The requirements of an action for
declaratory relief are as follows: (1) there As to the invalidity of the issuances, we
must be a justiciable controversy; (2) the Thirdly, respondent has legal interest over affirm the ruling of the CA.
controversy must be between persons whose the case since the amount he seeks to claim
interests are adverse; (3) the party seeking would differ because the implementation of Administrative issuances may be classified
declaratory relief must have a legal interest R.A. No. 8291 and PPG No. 171-03 and into two, i.e., legislative rule and
in the controversy; and (4) the issue Regulation No. 90 provide for different administrative rule. The former is in the
involved must be ripe for judicial starting point for the computation of matter of subordinate legislation, designed
determination.26 Certainly, it is the RTC retirement benefits. Application of the latter to implement a primary legislation by
which is vested with jurisdiction to try such would decrease his retirement benefits from providing the details thereof. On the other
petition. In the case of Commissioner of P542,325.00 to P342,295.80 considering the hand, the latter is designed to provide
Customs v. Hypermix Feeds varying starting point for the computation of guidelines to the law which the
Corporation,27 we reiterated that the retirement benefits. Under R.A. No. 8291, administrative agency is in charge of
determination of whether a rule is issued by the reckoning period is the date of original enforcing.30
an administrative agency contravenes the appointment while in PPG No. 171-03 and
law or the Constitution is within the Resolution No. 90, the starting point is the As to the import of these issuances, the case
jurisdiction of the regular courts. date of the payment of monthly of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v.
contributions by a member who was Michel J. Lhuillier Pawnshop, Inc.31 is
We find that respondent's petition is receiving a fixed basic monthly instructive:
sufficient to meet all the requirements. compensation for his services rendered.
When an administrative rule is merely
Firstly, there is justiciable controversy as Finally, the issue is ripe for judicial interpretative in nature, its applicability
respondent questions the legality and determination because litigation is inevitable needs nothing further than its bare issuance,
constitutionality of PPG No. 171-03 and for the reason that respondent's retirement for it gives no real consequence more than
Resolution No. 90, both of which were benefits would be substantially reduced by what the law itself has already prescribed.
issued by the GSIS. On this note, we the implementation of the assailed When, on the other hand, the administrative
emphasize that the courts are vested by the issuances.29 rule goes beyond merely providing for the
Constitution with the power of judicial means that can facilitate or render least
review, including the authority of the regular GSIS tried to brush aside the issue of cumbersome the implementation of the law
courts to determine in an appropriate action legality of the assailed issuances by focusing but substantially increases the burden of
the validity of the acts of political on the ultimate consequence should such those governed, it behooves the agency to
departments.28 issuances be declared invalid, i.e., the re- accord at least to those directly affected a
computation of the retirement benefits. chance to be heard, and thereafter to be duly
Secondly, the issue is between the GSIS, However, this is pure incidental to the informed, before that new issuance is given
which implements the assailed issuances and outcome of the relief prayed for in the action the force and effect of law.
for declaratory relief. It is so precisely
Clearly, PPG No. 171-03 is a legislative Considering that PPG No. 171-03 and the
rule. It does not merely provide guidelines to subsequent Resolution No. 90 are legislative
R.A. No. 8291, but in fact creates a burden issuances, necessitating publication for their
upon those who are governed in its effectivity and the undisputed fact of their
implementation. Specifically, PPG No. 171- non-publication, the assailed issuances must
03 supplies the conditions for the starting be struck down for being unconstitutional.
point when services are rendered, for the
purposes of computing all benefits under WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
R.A. No. 8291 and the same requires: (a) the instant petition is hereby DENIED.
member was receiving a fixed basic monthly Accordingly, the Decision dated February
compensation; and (b) monthly 25, 2014 and the Resolution dated April 28,
contributions were timely and correctly paid 2015 of the Court of Appeals-Cagayan de
or remitted. However, there was no Oro City in CA-G.R. CV No. 01773-MIN
condition and definition provided under are AFFIRMED.
R.A. No. 8291; "services" was neither
defined nor delineated for the purposes of SO ORDERED.
computing benefits. In other words, PPG
No. 171-03 provides the details for the
starting point of the computation of GSIS
benefits. It effectively supplants the period
prescribed under R.A. No. 8291.
Parenthetically, Regulation No. 90, which
approved PPG No. 171-03 is, likewise, of
the same character.

As PPG No. 171-03 and the subsequent

Resolution No. 90 are legislative rules,
publication is indispensable.

Publication of statutes satisfies the

constitutional right of the people to due
process. It keeps the citizenry informed and
notified of various laws which are to
regulate their actions and conduct. Without
such notice and publication, there would be
no basis for the application of
the ignorantia legis non excusat.32
 15. Reterta v. Mores, August 17, 2011
ISSUE: Section 12. xxx the Chief of the Bureau of
Facts: Public Lands shall give the said settler and
WHETHER OR NOT THE RTC HAS occupant a certificate which shall set forth in
JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE. detail that the Government has agreed to sell
Petitioners commenced an action with the to such settler and occupant the amount of
RTC for quieting of title and reconveyance RULING: land so held by him, at the price so fixed,
averring that they are the true and real payable as provided in this Act at the office
No. of the Chief of Bureau of Public Lands xxx
owners of the land in Tanza, having
and that upon the payment of the final
inherited it from their father who had died, because an action for reconveyance or to
installment together with all accrued interest
who had been in open, exclusive, notorious, remove a cloud on one’s title involves the
the Government will convey to such settler
and continuous possession of the land for title to, or possession of, real property, or
and occupant the said land so held by him by
more than 30 years. any interest therein, exclusive original
proper instrument of conveyance, which
jurisdiction over such action pertained to the
shall be issued and become effective in the
The respondents filed a motion to dismiss, RTC, unless the assessed value of the
manner provided in section one hundred and
insisting that the RTC had no jurisdiction to property did not exceed ₱20,000.00 (in
twenty-two of the Land Registration Act
which instance the MTC having territorial
take cognizance of the case due to the land xxx.
jurisdiction would have exclusive original
being friar land. jurisdiction). Determinative of which regular
Section 18. No lease or sale made by Chief
court had jurisdiction would be the
of the Bureau of Public Lands under the
allegations of the complaint (on the assessed
provisions of this Act shall be valid until
value of the property) and the principal relief
approved by the Secretary of the
thereby sought.
Interior.1awphi1

As the provisions indicate, the authority of

LMB under Act No. 1120, being limited to
the administration and disposition of friar
lands, did not include the petitioners’ action
for reconveyance. LMB ceases to have
jurisdiction once the friar land is disposed of
in favor of a private person and title duly
issues in the latter’s name. By ignoring the
petitioners’ showing of its plain error in
dismissing Civil Case No. TM-983, and by
disregarding the allegations of the
complaint, the RTC acted whimsically and
capriciously.
Given all the foregoing, the RTC committed
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
of jurisdiction.
 (d) All driveways, playgrounds, garden areas Issue:
and PARKING AREAS OTHER THAN
16. Multi-Realty Development THOSE ASSIGNED TO EACH UNIT WHETHER OR NOT MULTI-REALTY
Corporation v. Makati Tuscany, UNDER SEC. 5 ABOVE  HAS CAUSE OF ACTION
GR No. 146726, June 16, 2006
Respondent did not object, and Certificates RULING:
of Title were issued. In September 1989,
Petitioner is a real estate developer and Multi-Realty, through its President, Henry YES.
constructed the Makati Tuscany Sy, who was also a member of the Board of
CondominiumRespondent is a corporation Directors of MATUSCO, requested that two To determine when all the facts which
established to manage the condominium Multi-Realty executives be allowed to park constitute a cause of action for reformation of
units their cars in two of Makati Tuscanys an instrument may be brought and when the
remaining 72 unallocated parking slots  right of the petitioner to file such action
accrues, the second paragraph of Section 1,
270 rking slots were made, 164 Rule 63, must be considered because an
allotted. 98 units were left retained In its Answer with counterclaim, MATUSCO
action for the reformation of an instrument
by petitioner to be put on sale to unit alleged that Multi-Realty had no cause of
may be brought under said Rule:
owners who would want more action against it for reformation of their
contract. By its own admission, Multi-Realty
parking sold various parking slots to third parties SECTION 1. Who may file petition. – Any
despite its knowledge that the parking areas, person interested under a deed, will, contract
The Master Deed and Declaration of other than those mentioned in Sec. 5 of the or other written instrument, whose rights are
Restrictions did not reflect or specify the Master Deed, belonged to MATUSCO.  affected by a statute, executive order or
regulation, ordinance, or any other
ownership of the 98 parking slots.
governmental regulation may, before breach
Nevertheless, petitioner sold 26 of them to The trial court ruled that Multi-Realty failed to
or violation thereof, bring an action in the
unit buyers in 1977-1986. prove any ground for the reformation of its
appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine
agreement with MATUSCO relative to the
any question of construction or validity arising,
ownership of the common areas. 
SEC. 5. Accessories to Units. To be and for a declaration of his rights or duties,
considered as part of each unit and reserved thereunder.
for the exclusive use of its owner are the
balconies adjacent thereto and the parking An action for the reformation of an instrument,
to quiet title to real property or remove clouds
lot or lots which are to be assigned to each
therefrom, or to consolidate ownership under
unit. SEC. 7. The Common Areas. The Article 1607 of the Civil Code, may be brought
common elements or areas of the Makati under this Rule (emphasis supplied).
Tuscany shall comprise of all the parts of the
project other than the units, including Such a petition is a special civil action
without limitation the following:  determinative of the rights of the parties to the
case. It is permitted on the theory that courts
should be allowed to act, not only when harm
is actually done and rights jeopardized by
physical wrongs or physical attack upon
existing legal relations, but also when
challenge, refusal, dispute or denial thereof is
made amounting to a live controversy.

The concept and meaning of the term cause

of action in proceedings for declaratory relief,
vis-à-vis an ordinary civil action, is broadened.
It is not, as in ordinary civil action, the wrong
or delict by which the plaintiff’s rights are
violated, but it is extended to a mere denial,
refusal or challenge raising at least an
uncertainty or insecurity which is injurious to
plaintiff’s rights.
Rule 64 Bureau of Customs were given individual ISSUE:
notices of separation. They filed appeals
Dario v. Mison, GR No. 81954, August 8, with the CSC. On June 1988, the CSC WHAT IS THE BASIS OF RULE 64?
1989 promulgated its ruling ordering the
reinstatement of the 279 employees, the 279 RULING:
In 1986, Cory Aquino promulgated private respondents in G.R. No. 85310.
Proclamation No. 3, which is the mandate of Commissioner Mison, represented by the Art. IX, sec, 7. The provision reads: "Sec. 7.
the people to Completely reorganize the Solicitor General, filed a motion for Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution
government. Two years later, President reconsideration, which was denied. or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of
each Commission may be brought to the
Aquino promulgated EO 127, which Commissioner Mison instituted certiorari Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved
provides for the reorganization of the proceedings. On June 10, 1988, Republic party within thirty days from receipt of a copy
Ministry of Finance and along with it the Act No. 6656, was signed into law and thereof.”
reorganization of the Bureau of Customs and according to the provisions of the
prescribes a new staffing pattern for the aforementioned Act, the process in which THE WORD “certiorari”refers to the special
abovementioned office.  Following the terminated employees in violation of RA civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 and not
adoption of the new Constitution, On 6656 shall be reinstated or reappointed. On under rule 45.
January 1988 the incumbent Commissioner June 23, 1988, Benedicto Amasa and
of Customs Salvador Mison issued a William Dionisio, customs examiners
memorandum “Guidelines on the appointed by Commissioner Mison pursuant
Implementation of Reorganization Executive to the ostensible reorganization subject of
Orders which prescribes the procedure in this controversy, petitioned the Court to
personnel placement. Such memorandum contest the validity of the statute.
provides that by February of 1988, all of the
employees covered by EO 127 shall be
informed of their re-appointment and also
offered another position in the same
department or agency and to be informed of
their termination.

Mison addressed several notices to various

Customs officials stating that they shall
continue to perform their respective duties
and responsibilities in a hold-over capacity,
and that those incumbents whose positions
are not carried in the new reorganization
pattern, or who are not re-appointed, shall be
deemed separated from the service.

A total of 394 officials and employees of the

 lists of voters, subject of the protest be After hearing private respondent's
brought before the court.6 application, the COMELEC (Second
271 Esteves v. Sarmiento, GR Division) issued a temporary restraining
No. 182374, November 11, 2008 Private respondent then filed an answer, order (TRO) on 06 December 2007, which
which the RTC admitted in an Order dated 2 directed Judge Soluren to desist from further
In the national and local elections conducted August 2007. In the same order, the RTC proceeding with Election Protest Case No.
last 14 May 2007, petitioner and private denied the motion for reconsideration of the 96 until further orders from the
respondent both ran for the position of dismissal of private respondent's counter- COMELEC.11
municipal mayor of the Municipality of protest on the ground of non-payment of
Casiguran, Aurora. On 15 May 2007, the filing fee. Thereafter, the RTC ordered the Thereafter, petitioner filed before this Court
Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed creation of the revision committees.7 a special civil action for certiorari and
private respondent as the duly-elected prohibition with application for issuance of a
Mayor of Casiguran on the basis of the On 6 September 2007, private respondent temporary restraining order and/or writ of
results of the canvassing, which showed him filed a motion to dismiss the election protest, preliminary injunction. The petition,
having garnered 3,342 votes or with a arguing that it was defective in form and docketed as G.R. No. 180792, prayed that a
margin of 48 votes over petitioner, who substance as it did not specify the precincts temporary restraining order be issued
obtained 3,294 votes.4 where fraud and irregularities were enjoining the COMELEC (Second Division)
committed. On 8 September 2007, the RTC from taking cognizance of SPR Case No.
On 25 May 2007, petitioner filed an election issued the order denying private 46-2007 and that the TRO issued by the
protest before the Regional Trial Court of respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of COMELEC be ordered lifted.
Baler, Aurora. The protest was docketed as merit.8
Election Protest Case (EPC) No. 99 and ISSUE:
raffled to Branch 96 presided by Judge Thus, private respondent filed before the
Corazon D. Soluren.5 COMELEC a petition for certiorari and WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITION
prohibition with application for temporary FILED BY ESTEVES BE DISMISSED.
The RTC then issued a precautionary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of
protection order directing the Municipal preliminary injunction.9 The petition sought RULING:
Treasurer and Election Officer of Casiguran to nullify the RTC Order dated 8 September
to take immediate steps to safeguard the 2007 denying private respondent's motion to YES.
integrity of all the ballot boxes, lists of dismiss. It also prayed that the election
voters and other paraphernalia used in the protest filed by petitioner be dismissed and Under Article IX- C, an aggrieved party
elections and thereafter directed that all the the proceedings thereon enjoined on the must first file a motion for reconsideration
election paraphernalia, including the ballot ground that the election protest failed to of a resolution of the Division to the
boxes and comply with the requirements of Section COMELEC en banc is mandatory and
11(f), Rule 210 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC. jurisdictional in invoking the power of
Petitioner filed an answer on 5 December review of the Supreme Court. Failure to
2007. abide by this procedural requirement
constitutes a ground for dismissal of the
petition.16
Since the COMELEC Rules of Procedure
allows the review of a resolution of the
Division by the COMELEC en banc, the
filing of the instant petition for certiorari and
prohibition is premature. The petition does
not allege that petitioner indeed filed a
motion for reconsideration before the
COMELEC en banc. The unquestioned rule
in this jurisdiction is that certiorari will lie
only if there is no appeal or any other plain,
speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law against the acts of public
respondent.21 Certiorari cannot be resorted to
as a shield from the adverse consequences of
petitioner's own omission to file the required
motion for reconsideration.22 A litigant
should first exhaust the administrative
remedies provided by law before seeking
judicial intervention in order to give the
administrative agency an opportunity to
decide correctly the matter and prevent
unnecessary and premature resort to the
court.23 The premature invocation of judicial
intervention is fatal to one's cause of
action.24