867 Phil. 636
LAZARO-JAVIER, J.:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing circumstances, judgment is rendered in favor of Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation. For lack of jurisdiction, the instant case is ordered DISMISSED without prejudice. Fittingly, the court holds its hands tightly in not passing upon the other issue.The trial court recognized that since PDIC is a quasi-judicial agency which performed the assailed quasi-judicial action, the case should have been brought up to the Court of Appeals.[7]
SO ORDERED.[6] (Emphasis in the original)
Section 9. Jurisdiction.- The Court of Appeals shall exercise:Verily, the Court of Appeals here erred when it dismissed petitioner's special civil action for certiorari on ground that since the case involves a pure question of law, the same falls within this Court's exclusive jurisdiction.1. Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction;The Court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and conduct new trials or Appeals must be continuous and must be completed within three (3) months, unless extended by the Chief Justice. (as amended by R.A. No. 7902) (emphasis supplied)
2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgements of Regional Trial Courts; and
3. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgements, resolutions, orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi- judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commission, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Social Security Commission, the Employees Compensation Commission and the Civil Service Commission, Except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and subparagraph 4 of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.
In 1981, this Court's original jurisdiction over extraordinary writs became concurrent with the CA, pursuant to Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 (BP 129) or the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980. BP 129 repealed RA No. 296 and granted the CA with "[o]riginal jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction." x x xToo, Saint Mary Crusade to Alleviate Poverty of Brethren Foundation, Inc. v. Judge Riel[14] ordained:XXX XXX XXX
This so-called "policy" was reaffirmed two years later in People v. Cuaresma, which involved a petition for certiorari challenging the quashal by the City Fiscal of an Information for defamation on the ground of prescription. In dismissing the petition, this Court reminded litigants to refrain from directly filing petitions for extraordinary writs before the Court, unless there were special and important reasons therefor. We then introduced the concept of "hierarchy of courts," to wit:x x x This Court's original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari (as well as prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction) is not exclusive. It is shared by this Court with Regional Trial Courts (formerly Courts of First Instance), which may issue the writ, enforceable in any part of their respective regions. It is also shared by this Court, and by the Regional Trial Court, with the Court of Appeals (formerly, Intermediate Appellate Court), although prior to the effectivity of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 on August 14, 1981, the latter's competence to issue the extraordinary writs was restricted to those "in aid of its appellate jurisdiction." 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 therefore 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 petitions 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. A direct invocation of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. This is established policy. x x x (Citations omitted; emphasis supplied
Fourthly, the filing of the instant special civil action directly in this Court is in disregard of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. Although the Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals in issuing the writ of certiorari, direct resort is allowed only when there are special, [extraordinary] or compelling reasons that justify the same. The Court enforces the observance of the hierarchy of courts in order to free itself from unnecessary, frivolous and impertinent cases and thus afford time for it to deal with the more fundamental and more essential tasks that the Constitution has assigned to . it. There being no special, important or compelling reason, the petitioner thereby violated the observance of the hierarchy of courts, warranting the dismissal of the petition for certiorari. (Citations omitted)There is no compelling reason for the Court of Appeals here not to adhere to and observe the hierarchy of courts.
In Peter L. So v. Philippine Deposit Insurance Corp., [15] the Court pronounced that the Court of Appeals is vested with jurisdiction over matters relating to the dispositions of PDIC, viz:DEFINITION OF TERMS
SEC. 5. As used in this Act-X X X X
(g) XXX XXX XXX XXX
The actions of the Corporation taken under Section 5(g) shall be final and executory, and may only be restrained or set aside by the Court of Appeals, upon appropriate petition for certiorari on the ground that the action was taken in excess of jurisdiction or with such grave abuse of discretion as to amount to a lack or excess of jurisdiction. The petition for certiorari may only be filed within thirty(30) days from notice of denial of claim for deposit insurance. (Emphasis supplied)
We proceed to determine where such petition for certiorari should be filed. In this matter, We cite the very provision invoked by the petitioner, i.e., Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules, as amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC:Finally, petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals should have treated her petition for certiorari as an original action against the assailed PDIC dispositions. She has, in fact, allegedly included in her petition an alternative prayer, thus:
Sec. 4. When and where to file the petition. -The petition shall be / filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days counted from the notice of the denial of the motion.
If the petition relates to an act or an omission of a municipal trial court or of a corporation, a board, an officer or a person, it shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. It may also be filed with the Court of Appeals or with the Sandiganbayan, whether or not the same is in aid of the court's appellate jurisdiction. If the petition involves an act or an omission of a quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by law or these rules, the petition shall be filed with and be cognizable only by the Court of Appeals. x x x
Clearly, a petition for certiorari, questioning the PDIC's denial of a deposit insurance claim should be filed before the CA, not the RTC. This further finds support in Section 22 of the PDIC's Charter, as amended, which states that Section 22. No court, except the Court of Appeals, shall issue any temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction or preliminary mandatory injunction against the Corporation for any action under this Act. x x x.
This prohibition shall apply in all cases, disputes or controversies instituted by a private party, the insured bank, or any shareholder of the insured bank. x x x.XXX XXX XXX
Finally, the new amendment in PDIC's Charter under RA 10846, specifically Section 5(g) thereof, confirms such conclusion, viz:
The actions of the Corporation taken under Section 5(g) shall be final and executory, and may only be restrained or set aside by the Court of Appeals, upon appropriate petition for certiorari on the ground that the action was taken in excess of jurisdiction or with such grave abuse of discretion as to amount to a Lack or excess of jurisdiction. The petition for certiorari may only be filed within thirty (30) days from notice of denial of claim for deposit insurance. x x x
As it stands, the controversy as to which court has jurisdiction over a petition for certiorari filed to question the PDIC's action is already settled. Therefore, We find no reversible error from the findings and conclusion of the court a quo. (Emphasis supplied)
In the alternative, petitioner respectfully prays that the instant petition be treated as a petition for certiorari from the PDIC's denial of petitioner's claim for deposit insurance and that said x x x petition be granted by ordering PDIC to pay petitioner the insured amount of P500,000.00 under Special Savings Deposit Account No. 001 03-00904-1.[16]The argument must fail. The Court of Appeals could not have granted petitioner's prayer to consider her petition to have been filed in accordance with the PDIC rules simply because the petition was filed beyond the thirty (30)-day reglementary period prescribed under RA 10846.