EN BANC

G.R. No. 175723 February 4, 2014

THE CITY OF MANILA, rere!e"#e$ by MAYOR %O&E L. ATIEN'A, %R., a"$ M&.
LI(ERTY M. TOLE)O, *" +er ,aa,*#y a! #+e C*#y Trea!urer o- Ma"*.a, Petitioners,
vs.
HON. CARI)A) H. GRECIA/C0ER)O, *" +er ,aa,*#y a! 1re!*$*"2 %u$2e o- #+e
Re2*o"a. Tr*a. Cour#, (ra",+ 112, 1a!ay C*#y3 &M MART, INC.3 &M 1RIME HOL)ING&,
INC.3 &TAR A11LIANCE& CENTER3 &01ER4AL0E, INC.3 ACE HAR)5ARE
1HILI11INE&, INC.3 5AT&ON 1ER&ONAL CARE &TORE&, 1HIL&., INC.3
%OLLIMART 1HIL&., COR1.3 &0R1L0& MAR6ETING COR1ORATION a"$
&IGNAT0RE LINE&, Respondents.
) E C I & I O N
1ERALTA, J.:
Before the Court is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
seeking to reverse and set aside the Resolutions
1
dated April 6, !!6 and Nove"#er $, !!6 of
the Court of Appeals %CA& in CA'(.R. )P No. *+$,*.
-he antecedents of the case, as su""ari.ed #/ the CA, are as follo0s1
-he record sho0s that petitioner Cit/ of 2anila, through its treasurer, petitioner 3i#ert/ -oledo,
assessed ta4es for the ta4a#le period fro" 5anuar/ to 6ece"#er !! against private respondents
)2 2art, 7nc., )2 Pri"e 8oldings, 7nc., )tar Appliances Center, )upervalue, 7nc., Ace
8ard0are Philippines, 7nc., 9atsons Personal Care )tores Phils., 7nc., 5olli"art Philippines
Corp., )urplus 2arketing Corp. and )ignature 3ines. 7n addition to the ta4es purportedl/ due
fro" private respondents pursuant to )ection 1,, 15, 16, 1+ of the Revised Revenue Code of
2anila %RRC2&, said assess"ent covered the local #usiness ta4es petitioners 0ere authori.ed to
collect under )ection 1 of the sa"e Code. Because pa/"ent of the ta4es assessed 0as a
precondition for the issuance of their #usiness per"its, private respondents 0ere constrained to
pa/ the P1$,:16,,5*.++ assess"ent under protest.
;n 5anuar/ ,, !!,, private respondents filed <0ith the Regional -rial Court of Pasa/ Cit/= the
co"plaint deno"inated as one for >Refund or Recover/ of 7llegall/ and?or Erroneousl/'
Collected 3ocal Business -a4, Prohi#ition 0ith Pra/er to 7ssue -R; and 9rit of Preli"inar/
7n@unction>
0hich 0as docketed as Civil Case No. !,'!!1$'CA2 #efore pu#lic respondentBs sala <at Branch
11=. 7n the a"ended co"plaint the/ filed on Ae#ruar/ 16, !!,, private respondents alleged
that, in relation to )ection 1 thereof, )ections 1,, 15, 16, 1+, 1*, 1$ and ! of the RRC2 0ere
violative of the li"itations and guidelines under )ection 1,: %h& of Repu#lic Act. No. +16!
<3ocal (overn"ent Code= on dou#le ta4ation. -he/ further averred that petitioner cit/Bs
1
;rdinance No. *!11 0hich a"ended pertinent portions of the RRC2 had alread/ #een declared
to #e illegal and unconstitutional #/ the 6epart"ent of 5ustice.

7n its ;rder
:
dated 5ul/ $, !!,, the R-C granted private respondentsB application for a 0rit of
preli"inar/ in@unction.
Petitioners filed a 2otion for Reconsideration
,
#ut the R-C denied it in its ;rder
5
dated ;cto#er
15, !!,.
Petitioners then filed a special civil action for certiorari 0ith the CA assailing the 5ul/ $, !!,
and ;cto#er 15, !!, ;rders of the R-C.
6
7n its Resolution pro"ulgated on April 6, !!6, the CA dis"issed petitionersB petition for
certiorari holding that it has no @urisdiction over the said petition. -he CA ruled that since
appellate @urisdiction over private respondentsB co"plaint for ta4 refund, 0hich 0as filed 0ith
the R-C, is vested in the Court of -a4 Appeals %C-A&, pursuant to its e4panded @urisdiction
under Repu#lic Act No. $* %RA $*&, it follo0s that a petition for certiorari seeking
nullification of an interlocutor/ order issued in the said case should, like0ise, #e filed 0ith the
C-A.
Petitioners filed a 2otion for Reconsideration,
+
#ut the CA denied it in its Resolution dated
Nove"#er $, !!6.
8ence, the present petition raising the follo0ing issues1
7' 9hether or not the 8onora#le Court of Appeals gravel/ erred in dis"issing the case for
lack of @urisdiction.
77' 9hether or not the 8onora#le Regional -rial Court gravel/ a#use<d= its discretion
a"ounting to lack or e4cess of @urisdiction in en@oining #/ issuing a 9rit of 7n@unction
the petitioners, their agents and?or authori.ed representatives fro" i"ple"enting )ection
1 of the Revised Revenue Code of 2anila, as a"ended, against private respondents.
777' 9hether or not the 8onora#le Regional -rial Court gravel/ a#use<d= its discretion
a"ounting to lack or e4cess of @urisdiction in issuing the 9rit of 7n@unction despite
failure of private respondents to "ake a 0ritten clai" for ta4 credit or refund 0ith the
Cit/ -reasurer of 2anila.
7C' 9hether or not the 8onora#le Regional -rial Court gravel/ a#use<d= its discretion
a"ounting to lack or e4cess of @urisdiction considering that under )ection 1 of the
2anila Revenue Code, as a"ended, the/ are "ere collecting agents of the Cit/
(overn"ent.
C' 9hether or not the 8onora#le Regional -rial Court gravel/ a#use<d= its discretion
a"ounting to lack or e4cess of @urisdiction in issuing the 9rit of 7n@unction #ecause
2
petitioner Cit/ of 2anila and its constituents 0ould result to greater da"age and
pre@udice thereof. %sic&
*
9ithout first resolving the a#ove issues, this Court finds that the instant petition should #e
denied for #eing "oot and acade"ic.
Dpon perusal of the original records of the instant case, this Court discovered that a 6ecision
$
in
the "ain case had alread/ #een rendered #/ the R-C on August 1:, !!+, the dispositive portion
of 0hich reads as follo0s1
98EREA;RE, in vie0 of the foregoing, this Court here#/ renders 5D6(2EN- in favor of the
plaintiff and against the defendant to grant a ta4 refund or credit for ta4es paid pursuant to
)ection 1 of the Revenue Code of the Cit/ of 2anila as a"ended for the /ear !! in the
follo0ing a"ounts1
-o plaintiff )2 2art, 7nc. ' P 11,,6,55.!
-o plaintiff )2 Pri"e 8oldings, 7nc. ' :,11*,1!,.6:
-o plaintiff )tar Appliances Center ' ,15,:16.5,
-o plaintiff )upervalue, 7nc. ' 1,:6,+5!.:,
-o plaintiff Ace 8ard0are Phils., 7nc. ' ,1$,6*$.!,
-o plaintiff 9atsons Personal Care 8ealth ' :1,,5:.6
)tores Phils., 7nc.
-o plaintiff 5olli"art Phils., Corp. ' 1,!,$!*.5,
-o plaintiff )urplus 2arketing Corp. ' !,!,.+!
-o plaintiff )ignature 2ktg. Corp. ' $,,$!6.:,
-;-A31 ' P 1$,:16,,5*.++
6efendants are further en@oined fro" collecting ta4es under )ection 1, Revenue Code of 2anila
fro" herein plaintiff.
); ;R6ERE6.
1!
-he parties did not infor" the Court #ut #ased on the records, the a#ove 6ecision had alread/
#eco"e final and e4ecutor/ per the Certificate of Ainalit/
11
issued #/ the sa"e trial court on
;cto#er !, !!*. 7n fact, a 9rit of E4ecution
1
0as issued #/ the R-C on Nove"#er 5, !!$.
7n vie0 of the foregoing, it clearl/ appears that the issues raised in the present petition, 0hich
"erel/ involve the incident on the preli"inar/ in@unction issued #/ the R-C, have alread/
#eco"e "oot and acade"ic considering that the trial court, in its decision on the "erits in the
"ain case, has alread/ ruled in favor of respondents and that the sa"e decision is no0 final and
e4ecutor/. 9ell entrenched is the rule that 0here the issues have #eco"e "oot and acade"ic,
3
there is no @usticia#le controvers/, there#/ rendering the resolution of the sa"e of no practical
use or value.
1:
7n an/ case, the Court finds it necessar/ to resolve the issue on @urisdiction raised #/ petitioners
o0ing to its significance and for future guidance of #oth #ench and #ar. 7t is a settled principle
that courts 0ill decide a Euestion other0ise "oot and acade"ic if it is capa#le of repetition, /et
evading revie0.
1,
8o0ever, #efore proceeding, to resolve the Euestion on @urisdiction, the Court dee"s it proper to
like0ise address a procedural error 0hich petitioners co""itted.
Petitioners availed of the 0rong re"ed/ 0hen the/ filed the instant special civil action for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court in assailing the Resolutions of the CA 0hich
dis"issed their petition filed 0ith the said court and their "otion for reconsideration of such
dis"issal. -here is no dispute that the assailed Resolutions of the CA are in the nature of a final
order as the/ disposed of the petition co"pletel/. 7t is settled that in cases 0here an assailed
@udg"ent or order is considered final, the re"ed/ of the aggrieved part/ is appeal. 8ence, in the
instant case, petitioner should have filed a petition for revie0 on certiorari under Rule ,5, 0hich
is a continuation of the appellate process over the original case.
15
Petitioners should #e re"inded of the eEuall/'settled rule that a special civil action for certiorari
under Rule 65 is an original or independent action #ased on grave a#use of discretion a"ounting
to lack or e4cess of @urisdiction and it 0ill lie onl/ if there is no appeal or an/ other plain,
speed/, and adeEuate re"ed/ in the ordinar/ course of la0.
16
As such, it cannot #e a su#stitute
for a lost appeal.
1+
Nonetheless, in accordance 0ith the li#eral spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest
of su#stantial @ustice, this Court has, #efore, treated a petition for certiorari as a petition for
revie0 on certiorari, particularl/ %1& if the petition for certiorari 0as filed 0ithin the
regle"entar/ period 0ithin 0hich to file a petition for revie0 on certiorariF %& 0hen errors of
@udg"ent are averredF and %:& 0hen there is sufficient reason to @ustif/ the rela4ation of the
rules.
1*
Considering that the present petition 0as filed 0ithin the 15'da/ regle"entar/ period for
filing a petition for revie0 on certiorari under Rule ,5, that an error of @udg"ent is averred, and
#ecause of the significance of the issue on @urisdiction, the Court dee"s it proper and @ustified to
rela4 the rules and, thus, treat the instant petition for certiorari as a petition for revie0 on
certiorari.
8aving disposed of the procedural aspect, 0e no0 turn to the central issue in this case. -he #asic
Euestion posed #efore this Court is 0hether or not the C-A has @urisdiction over a special civil
action for certiorari assailing an interlocutor/ order issued #/ the R-C in a local ta4 case.
-his Court rules in the affir"ative.
;n 5une 16, 1$5,, Congress enacted Repu#lic Act No. 115 %RA 115& creating the C-A and
giving to the said court @urisdiction over the follo0ing1
4
%1& 6ecisions of the Collector of 7nternal Revenue in cases involving disputed
assess"ents, refunds of internal revenue ta4es, fees or other charges, penalties i"posed in
relation thereto, or other "atters arising under the National 7nternal Revenue Code or
other la0 or part of la0 ad"inistered #/ the Bureau of 7nternal RevenueF
%& 6ecisions of the Co""issioner of Custo"s in cases involving lia#ilit/ for custo"s
duties, fees or other "one/ chargesF sei.ure, detention or release of propert/ affected
fines, forfeitures or other penalties i"posed in relation theretoF or other "atters arising
under the Custo"s 3a0 or other la0 or part of la0 ad"inistered #/ the Bureau of
Custo"sF and
%:& 6ecisions of provincial or Cit/ Boards of Assess"ent Appeals in cases involving the
assess"ent and ta4ation of real propert/ or other "atters arising under the Assess"ent
3a0, including rules and regulations relative thereto.
;n 2arch :!, !!,, the 3egislature passed into la0 Repu#lic Act No. $* %RA $*& a"ending
RA 115 #/ e4panding the @urisdiction of the C-A, enlarging its "e"#ership and elevating its
rank to the level of a collegiate court 0ith special @urisdiction. Pertinent portions of the
a"endator/ act provides thus1
)ec. +. 5urisdiction. ' -he C-A shall e4ercise1
a. E4clusive appellate @urisdiction to revie0 #/ appeal, as herein provided1
1. 6ecisions of the Co""issioner of 7nternal Revenue in cases involving disputed
assess"ents, refunds of internal revenue ta4es, fees or other charges, penalties in
relation thereto, or other "atters arising under the National 7nternal Revenue or
other la0s ad"inistered #/ the Bureau of 7nternal RevenueF
. 7naction #/ the Co""issioner of 7nternal Revenue in cases involving disputed
assess"ents, refunds of internal revenue ta4es, fees or other charges, penalties in
relations thereto, or other "atters arising under the National 7nternal Revenue
Code or other la0s ad"inistered #/ the Bureau of 7nternal Revenue, 0here the
National 7nternal Revenue Code provides a specific period of action, in 0hich
case the inaction shall #e dee"ed a denialF
:. 6ecisions, orders or resolutions of the Regional -rial Courts in local ta4 cases
originall/ decided or resolved #/ the" in the e4ercise of their original or appellate
@urisdictionF
,. 6ecisions of the Co""issioner of Custo"s in cases involving lia#ilit/ for
custo"s duties, fees or other "one/ charges, sei.ure, detention or release of
propert/ affected, fines, forfeitures or other penalties in relation thereto, or other
"atters arising under the Custo"s 3a0 or other la0s ad"inistered #/ the Bureau
of Custo"sF
5
5. 6ecisions of the Central Board of Assess"ent Appeals in the e4ercise of its
appellate @urisdiction over cases involving the assess"ent and ta4ation of real
propert/ originall/ decided #/ the provincial or cit/ #oard of assess"ent appealsF
6. 6ecisions of the )ecretar/ of Ainance on custo"s cases elevated to hi"
auto"aticall/ for revie0 fro" decisions of the Co""issioner of Custo"s 0hich
are adverse to the (overn"ent under )ection :15 of the -ariff and Custo"s
CodeF
+. 6ecisions of the )ecretar/ of -rade and 7ndustr/, in the case of nonagricultural
product, co""odit/ or article, and the )ecretar/ of Agriculture in the case of
agricultural product, co""odit/ or article, involving du"ping and countervailing
duties under )ection :!1 and :!, respectivel/, of the -ariff and Custo"s Code,
and safeguard "easures under Repu#lic Act No. **!!, 0here either part/ "a/
appeal the decision to i"pose or not to i"pose said duties.
#. 5urisdiction over cases involving cri"inal offenses as herein provided1
1. E4clusive original @urisdiction over all cri"inal offenses arising fro" violations
of the National 7nternal Revenue Code or -ariff and Custo"s Code and other la0s
ad"inistered #/ the Bureau of 7nternal Revenue or the Bureau of Custo"s1
Provided, ho0ever, -hat offenses or felonies "entioned in this paragraph 0here
the principal a"ount of ta4es and fees, e4clusive of charges and penalties,
clai"ed is less than ;ne "illion pesos %P1,!!!,!!!.!!& or 0here there is no
specified a"ount clai"ed shall #e tried #/ the regular Courts and the @urisdiction
of the C-A shall #e appellate. An/ provision of la0 or the Rules of Court to the
contrar/ not0ithstanding, the cri"inal action and the corresponding civil action
for the recover/ of civil lia#ilit/ for ta4es and penalties shall at all ti"es #e
si"ultaneousl/ instituted 0ith, and @ointl/ deter"ined in the sa"e proceeding #/
the C-A, the filing of the cri"inal action #eing dee"ed to necessaril/ carr/ 0ith
it the filing of the civil action, and no right to reserve the filing of such civil action
separatel/ fro" the cri"inal action 0ill #e recogni.ed.
. E4clusive appellate @urisdiction in cri"inal offenses1
a. ;ver appeals fro" the @udg"ents, resolutions or orders of the Regional -rial Courts in ta4
cases originall/ decided #/ the", in their respected territorial @urisdiction.
#. ;ver petitions for revie0 of the @udg"ents, resolutions or orders of the Regional -rial Courts
in the e4ercise of their appellate @urisdiction over ta4 cases originall/ decided #/ the
2etropolitan -rial Courts, 2unicipal -rial Courts and 2unicipal Circuit -rial Courts in their
respective @urisdiction.
c. 5urisdiction over ta4 collection cases as herein provided1
6
1. E4clusive original @urisdiction in ta4 collection cases involving final and
e4ecutor/ assess"ents for ta4es, fees, charges and penalties1 Provides, ho0ever,
that collection cases 0here the principal a"ount of ta4es and fees, e4clusive of
charges and penalties, clai"ed is less than ;ne "illion pesos %P1,!!!,!!!.!!&
shall #e tried #/ the proper 2unicipal -rial Court, 2etropolitan -rial Court and
Regional -rial Court.
. E4clusive appellate @urisdiction in ta4 collection cases1
a. ;ver appeals fro" the @udg"ents, resolutions or orders of the Regional -rial Courts in ta4
collection cases originall/ decided #/ the", in their respective territorial @urisdiction.
#. ;ver petitions for revie0 of the @udg"ents, resolutions or orders of the Regional -rial Courts
in the E4ercise of their appellate @urisdiction over ta4 collection cases originall/ decided #/ the
2etropolitan -rial Courts, 2unicipal -rial Courts and 2unicipal Circuit -rial Courts, in their
respective @urisdiction.
1$
A perusal of the a#ove provisions 0ould sho0 that, 0hile it is clearl/ stated that the C-A has
e4clusive appellate @urisdiction over decisions, orders or resolutions of the R-Cs in local ta4
cases originall/ decided or resolved #/ the" in the e4ercise of their original or appellate
@urisdiction, there is no categorical state"ent under RA 115 as 0ell as the a"endator/ RA $*,
0hich provides that th e C-A has @urisdiction over petitions for certiorari assailing interlocutor/
orders issued #/ the R-C in local ta4 cases filed #efore it.
-he prevailing doctrine is that the authorit/ to issue 0rits of certiorari involves the e4ercise of
original @urisdiction 0hich "ust #e e4pressl/ conferred #/ the Constitution or #/ la0 and cannot
#e i"plied fro" the "ere e4istence of appellate @urisdiction.
!
-hus, in the cases of Pi"entel v.
C;2E3EC,
1
(arcia v. 6e 5esus,

Celoria v. C;2E3EC,
:
6epart"ent of Agrarian Refor"
Ad@udication Board v. 3u#rica,
,
and (arcia v. )andigan#a/an,
5
this Court has ruled against the
@urisdiction of courts or tri#unals over petitions for certiorari on the ground that there is no la0
0hich e4pressl/ gives these tri#unals such po0er.
6
7t "ust #e o#served, ho0ever, that 0ith the
e4ception of (arcia v. )andigan#a/an,
+
these rulings pertain not to regular courts #ut to
tri#unals e4ercising Euasi'@udicial po0ers. 9ith respect to the )andigan#a/an, Repu#lic Act No.
*,$
*
no0 provides that the special cri"inal court has e4clusive original @urisdiction over
petitions for the issuance of the 0rits of "anda"us, prohi#ition, certiorari, ha#eas corpus,
in@unctions, and other ancillar/ 0rits and processes in aid of its appellate @urisdiction.
7n the sa"e "anner, )ection 5 %1&, Article C777 of the 1$*+ Constitution grants po0er to the
)upre"e Court, in the e4ercise of its original @urisdiction, to issue 0rits of certiorari, prohi#ition
and "anda"us. 9ith respect to the Court of Appeals, )ection $ %1& of Batas Pa"#ansa Blg. 1$
%BP 1$& gives the appellate court, also in the e4ercise of its original @urisdiction, the po0er to
issue, a"ong others, a 0rit of certiorari,0hether or not in aid of its appellate @urisdiction. As to
Regional -rial Courts, the po0er to issue a 0rit of certiorari, in the e4ercise of their original
@urisdiction, is provided under )ection 1 of BP 1$.
7
-he foregoing not0ithstanding, 0hile there is no e4press grant of such po0er, 0ith respect to the
C-A, )ection 1, Article C777 of the 1$*+ Constitution provides, nonetheless, that @udicial po0er
shall #e vested in one )upre"e Court and in such lo0er courts as "a/ #e esta#lished #/ la0 and
that @udicial po0er includes the dut/ of the courts of @ustice to settle actual controversies
involving rights 0hich are legall/ de"anda#le and enforcea#le, and to deter"ine 0hether or not
there has #een a grave a#use of discretion a"ounting to lack or e4cess of @urisdiction on the part
of an/ #ranch or instru"entalit/ of the (overn"ent.
;n the strength of the a#ove constitutional provisions, it can #e fairl/ interpreted that the po0er
of the C-A includes that of deter"ining 0hether or not there has #een grave a#use of discretion
a"ounting to lack or e4cess of @urisdiction on the part of the R-C in issuing an interlocutor/
order in cases falling 0ithin the e4clusive appellate @urisdiction of the ta4 court. 7t, thus, follo0s
that the C-A, #/ constitutional "andate, is vested 0ith @urisdiction to issue 0rits of certiorari in
these cases.
7ndeed, in order for an/ appellate court to effectivel/ e4ercise its appellate @urisdiction, it "ust
have the authorit/ to issue, a"ong others, a 0rit of certiorari. 7n transferring e4clusive
@urisdiction over appealed ta4 cases to the C-A, it can reasona#l/ #e assu"ed that the la0
intended to transfer also such po0er as is dee"ed necessar/, if not indispensa#le, in aid of such
appellate @urisdiction. -here is no perceiva#le reason 0h/ the transfer should onl/ #e considered
as partial, not total.
Consistent 0ith the a#ove pronounce"ent, this Court has held as earl/ as the case of 5.2. -uason
G Co., 7nc. v. 5ara"illo, et al.
$
that >if a case "a/ #e appealed to a particular court or @udicial
tri#unal or #od/, then said court or @udicial tri#unal or #od/ has @urisdiction to issue the
e4traordinar/ 0rit of certiorari, in aid of its appellate @urisdiction.>
:!
-his principle 0as affir"ed
in 6e 5esus v. Court of Appeals,
:1
0here the Court stated that >a court "a/ issue a 0rit of
certiorari in aid of its appellate @urisdiction if said court has @urisdiction to revie0, #/ appeal or
0rit of error, the final orders or decisions of the lo0er court.>
:
-he rulings in 5.2. -uason and
6e 5esus 0ere reiterated in the "ore recent cases of (alang, 5r. v. (eroni"o
::
and Bulilis v.
Nue..
:,
Aurther"ore, )ection 6, Rule 1:5 of the present Rules of Court provides that 0hen #/ la0,
@urisdiction is conferred on a court or @udicial officer, all au4iliar/ 0rits, processes and other
"eans necessar/ to carr/ it into effect "a/ #e e"plo/ed #/ such court or officer.
7f this Court 0ere to sustain petitionersB contention that @urisdiction over their certiorari petition
lies 0ith the CA, this Court 0ould #e confir"ing the e4ercise #/ t0o @udicial #odies, the CA and
the C-A, of @urisdiction over #asicall/ the sa"e su#@ect "atter H precisel/ the split'@urisdiction
situation 0hich is anathe"a to the orderl/ ad"inistration of @ustice.
:5
-he Court cannot accept
that such 0as the legislative "otive, especiall/ considering that the la0 e4pressl/ confers on the
C-A, the tri#unal 0ith the speciali.ed co"petence over ta4 and tariff "atters, the role of @udicial
revie0 over local ta4 cases 0ithout "ention of an/ other court that "a/ e4ercise such po0er.
-hus, the Court agrees 0ith the ruling of the CA that since appellate @urisdiction over private
respondentsB co"plaint for ta4 refund is vested in the C-A, it follo0s that a petition for certiorari
seeking nullification of an interlocutor/ order issued in the said case should, like0ise, #e filed
8
0ith the sa"e court. -o rule other0ise 0ould lead to an a#surd situation 0here one court decides
an appeal in the "ain case 0hile another court rules on an incident in the ver/ sa"e case.
)tated differentl/, it 0ould #e so"e0hat incongruent 0ith the pronounced @udicial a#horrence to
split @urisdiction to conclude that the intention of the la0 is to divide the authorit/ over a local
ta4 case filed 0ith the R-C #/ giving to the CA or this Court @urisdiction to issue a 0rit of
certiorari against interlocutor/ orders of the R-C #ut giving to the C-A the @urisdiction over the
appeal fro" the decision of the trial court in the sa"e case. 7t is "ore in consonance 0ith logic
and legal soundness to conclude that the grant of appellate @urisdiction to the C-A over ta4 cases
filed in and decided #/ the R-C carries 0ith it the po0er to issue a 0rit of certiorari 0hen
necessar/ in aid of such appellate @urisdiction. -he supervisor/ po0er or @urisdiction of the C-A
to issue a 0rit of certiorari in aid of its appellate @urisdiction should co'e4ist 0ith, and #e a
co"ple"ent to, its appellate @urisdiction to revie0, #/ appeal, the final orders and decisions of
the R-C, in order to have co"plete supervision over the acts of the latter.
:6
A grant of appellate @urisdiction i"plies that there is included in it the po0er necessar/ to
e4ercise it effectivel/, to "ake all orders that 0ill preserve the su#@ect of the action, and to give
effect to the final deter"ination of the appeal. 7t carries 0ith it the po0er to protect that
@urisdiction and to "ake the decisions of the court thereunder effective. -he court, in aid of its
appellate @urisdiction, has authorit/ to control all au4iliar/ and incidental "atters necessar/ to the
efficient and proper e4ercise of that @urisdiction.1wphi1 Aor this purpose, it "a/, 0hen
necessar/, prohi#it or restrain the perfor"ance of an/ act 0hich "ight interfere 0ith the proper
e4ercise of its rightful @urisdiction in cases pending #efore it.
:+
3astl/, it 0ould not #e a"iss to point out that a court 0hich is endo0ed 0ith a particular
@urisdiction should have po0ers 0hich are necessar/ to ena#le it to act effectivel/ 0ithin such
@urisdiction. -hese should #e regarded as po0ers 0hich are inherent in its @urisdiction and the
court "ust possess the" in order to enforce its rules of practice and to suppress an/ a#uses of its
process and to defeat an/ atte"pted th0arting of such process.
7n this regard, )ection 1 of RA $* states that the C-A shall #e of the sa"e level as the CA and
shall possess all the inherent po0ers of a court of @ustice.
7ndeed, courts possess certain inherent po0ers 0hich "a/ #e said to #e i"plied fro" a general
grant of @urisdiction, in addition to those e4pressl/ conferred on the". -hese inherent po0ers are
such po0ers as are necessar/ for the ordinar/ and efficient e4ercise of @urisdictionF or are
essential to the e4istence, dignit/ and functions of the courts, as 0ell as to the due ad"inistration
of @usticeF or are directl/ appropriate, convenient and suita#le to the e4ecution of their granted
po0ersF and include the po0er to "aintain the courtBs @urisdiction and render it effective in
#ehalf of the litigants.
:*
-hus, this Court has held that >0hile a court "a/ #e e4pressl/ granted the incidental po0ers
necessar/ to effectuate its @urisdiction, a grant of @urisdiction, in the a#sence of prohi#itive
legislation, i"plies the necessar/ and usual incidental po0ers essential to effectuate it, and,
su#@ect to e4isting la0s and constitutional provisions, ever/ regularl/ constituted court has
po0er to do all things that are reasona#l/ necessar/ for the ad"inistration of @ustice 0ithin the
9
scope of its @urisdiction and for the enforce"ent of its @udg"ents and "andates.>
:$
8ence,
de"ands, "atters or Euestions ancillar/ or incidental to, or gro0ing out of, the "ain action, and
co"ing 0ithin the a#ove principles, "a/ #e taken cogni.ance of #/ the court and deter"ined,
since such @urisdiction is in aid of its authorit/ over the principal "atter, even though the court
"a/ thus #e called on to consider and decide "atters 0hich, as original causes of action, 0ould
not #e 0ithin its cogni.ance.
,!
Based on the foregoing disEuisitions, it can #e reasona#l/ concluded that the authorit/ of the
C-A to take cogni.ance of petitions for certiorari Euestioning interlocutor/ orders issued #/ the
R-C in a local ta4 case is included in the po0ers granted #/ the Constitution as 0ell as inherent
in the e4ercise of its appellate @urisdiction.
Ainall/, it 0ould #ear to point out that this Court is not a#andoning the rule that, insofar as Euasi'
@udicial tri#unals are concerned, the authorit/ to issue 0rits of certiorari "ust still #e e4pressl/
conferred #/ the Constitution or #/ la0 and cannot #e i"plied fro" the "ere e4istence of their
appellate @urisdiction. -his doctrine re"ains as it applies onl/ to Euasi'@udicial #odies.
98EREA;RE, the petition is 6EN7E6.
); ;R6ERE6.
10
EN (ANC
%0)GE E)IL(ERTO G. A(&IN, A.M. No. 1/10/2728
Co"plainant,
Present1

C;R;NA, C.J.,
CARP7;,
CE3A)C;, 5R.,
3E;NAR6;'6E CA)-R;,
BR7;N,
' versus ' PERA3-A,
BER)A27N,
6E3 CA)-733;,
ABA6,
C733ARA2A, 5R.,
PEREI,
2EN6;IA, and
)EREN;, JJ.
E)GAR)O A. MONTALLA,
&#e"o2ra+er, Re2*o"a.
Tr*a. Cour#, (ra",+ 28,
&a" M*2ue., 'a9boa"2a
)e. &ur,
Respondent.
Pro"ulgated1
5une 1, !11
4' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 4
) E C I & I O N
PER CURIAM:
-his ad"inistrative "atter ste""ed fro" a letter'co"plaint filed #/
5udge Edil#erto (. A#sin %5udge A#sin&, Presiding 5udge of the Regional -rial Court, Branch $,
)an 2iguel, Ia"#oanga del )ur %R-C'Branch $&, charging
respondent Edgardo A. 2ontalla%2ontalla&, stenographer of the sa"e court, 0ith neglect of dut/
in failing to su#"it the reEuired transcripts of stenographic notes %-)Ns& despite repeated
re"inders fro" the court.

11
7n his letter'co"plaint dated : Nove"#er !!$, 5udge A#sin alleged that in the Resolution
dated : ;cto#er !!$ issued #/ the Court of Appeals %CA& in CA'(.R. No. !1*!'27N %Heirs
of Victoriano Magallanes, et al. v. Ernesto Pono and Crispina Pono&, the CA noted
that 2ontalla failed to su#"it signed copies of the -)Ns taken on the follo0ing dates1 %1& 1:
;cto#er !!, on the 0itness 2aria)a#ueroF %& 11 5anuar/ !!5 on the 0itness Rodolfo ;"#o/F
%:& 6 April !!5 on the 0itness Rosalinda 2agallanesF %,& 1 ;cto#er !!5 on the 0itness
Ernesto PonoF %5& + 6ece"#er !!5 on the 0itness Crispina PonoF and %6& 5 5anuar/ !!6 and
2arch !!6 on the 0itness Rogelio 2agallanes. 2ontalla allegedl/ asked for ti"e to su#"it
the reEuired -)Ns #ut failed to su#"it the sa"e. 2ontalla 0as repeatedl/ re"inded to co"pl/
0ith the CAJs resolution #ut he still did not co"pl/.
7n his Co""ent dated and "ailed on 1! 2arch !1!, 2ontalla ad"itted he 0as the stenographer
0ho took do0n the stenographic notes on the dates "entioned and #oth the presiding @udge and
the clerk of court repeatedl/ re"inded hi" to transcri#e the stenographic notes of the
proceedings. 2ontalla, ho0ever, clai"ed he 0as prevented fro" perfor"ing his tasks due to
poor health as he 0as diagnosed 0ith pul"onar/ tu#erculosis, peptic ulcer, and
dia#etes. 2ontalla no0 seeks the co"passion of the Court as he is allegedl/ still recovering fro"
his illnesses.
7n the Resolution dated August !1!, the parties 0ere reEuired to "anifest if the/ 0ere 0illing
to su#"it the "atter for resolution on the #asis of the pleadings filed. 9e noted the letter dated
, )epte"#er !1! of 5udge A#sin infor"ing the Court that he 0as su#"itting the case for
resolution on the #asis of the pleadings filed 0ithout further co""ent. 9e dispensed 0ith the
"anifestation of 2ontalla 0ho failed to file the sa"e 0ithin the period despite receipt of the
resolution.
-he ;ffice of the Court Ad"inistrator %;CA& opined that 2ontalla should have #een full/ a0are
that pu#lic officers are repositories of pu#lic trust and are under o#ligation to perfor" the duties
of their office honestl/, faithfull/, and to the #est of their a#ilit/. Aor failure to su#"it the
reEuired -)Ns, 2ontalla is guilt/ of gross neglect of dut/ classified as a grave offense and
punisha#le #/ dis"issal. 8o0ever, for hu"anitarian reasons, the ;CA reco""ended the
i"position of the penalt/ of suspension of si4 "onths 0ithout pa/ 0ith a stern 0arning that a
repetition of the sa"e or si"ilar infraction in the future shall #e dealt 0ith "ore severel/.
;n $ Ae#ruar/ !11, 0e issued a Resolution ordering 2ontalla to "anifest 0hether he has
su#"itted the reEuired -)Ns. 7n effect, this Resolution gave 2ontalla one "ore chance to
redee" hi"self. 8o0ever, 2ontalla "ailed on , 2arch !11 his Co""ent, 0hich 0as received
#/ ;CA on 2a/ !11, containing the sa"e state"ents he "ade in his Co""ent dated?"ailed
on 1! 2arch !1!. 8e ad"its that the Clerk of Court and 5udge A#sin had re"inded hi",
repeatedl/, to transcri#e the stenographic notes. 2ontalla ad"its his transgressions #ut this ti"e
his e4cuse is that his failure to su#"it the reEuired -)Ns 0as due to poor health %allegedl/
#ecause of Kprevious pul"onar/ tu#erculosis, peptic ulcer and dia#etesL& that prevented hi"
fro" perfor"ing si"ple tasks. But one thing is clear.2ontalla still has not su#"itted the reEuired
-)Ns 0hich 0ere taken so"eti"e in !!,, !!5, and !!6. Ceril/, 2ontalla has #een re"iss in
his dut/ as a court stenographer.
12

2ontalla should #e re"inded that it is the dut/ of the court stenographer 0ho has attended a
session of a court to i""ediatel/ deliver to the clerk of court all the notes he has taken, the sa"e
to #e attached to the record of the case.
1
Precisel/, Ad"inistrative Circular No. ,'$!

0as issued
in order to "ini"i.e dela/ in the ad@udication of cases as a great nu"#er of cases could not #e
decided or resolved pro"ptl/ #ecause of lack of -)Ns. -he circular reEuired all stenographers to
transcri#e all stenographic notes and to attach the -)Ns to the record of the case not later than !
da/s fro" the ti"e the notes are taken. -he attaching "a/ #e done #/ putting all -)Ns in a
separate folder or envelope, 0hich 0ill then #e @oined to the record of the case.
:
-he circular also
provided that the stenographer concerned shall acco"plish a verified "onthl/ certification as to
co"pliance 0ith this dut/ and in the a#sence of such certification or for failure and?or refusal to
su#"it it, his salar/ shall #e 0ithheld.
,
-he Court has ruled, in a nu"#er of cases,
5
that the failure to su#"it the -)Ns 0ithin the period
prescri#ed under Ad"inistrative Circular No. ,'$! constitutes gross neglect of dut/. (ross
neglect of dut/ is classified as a grave offense and punisha#le #/ dis"issal even if for the first
offense pursuant to )ection 5%A&%& of Rule 7C of the Dnifor" Rules on Ad"inistrative Cases
in the Civil )ervice.
-his is not the first ti"e that 2ontalla 0as charged 0ith neglect of dut/ for dela/ in the
su#"ission of the -)Ns. 8e 0as previousl/ 0arned of a repetition of the sa"e or si"ilar
infraction. 7n Office of the Court d!inistrator v. Montalla,
6
2ontalla incurred a dela/ of "ore
than three /ears in transcri#ing the -)Ns despite constant re"inders fro" his superiors to su#"it
the sa"e. 7n that case, 2ontalla ad"itted lapses in the perfor"ance of his function 0hich caused
a dela/ in the speed/ disposition of cases. 8e invoked serious "arital pro#le"s 0hich allegedl/
greatl/ affected his 0ork. -he Court considered 2ontallaJs Khu"#le ackno0ledg"ent of his
transgressions and his offer of sincere apolog/ and pro"ise to #e "ore circu"spect in the
perfor"ance of his dutiesL and the fact that it 0as his first infraction. 2ontalla 0as found guilt/
of si"ple neglect of dut/ and 0as fined P,!!! 0ith a stern 0arning that a repetition of the sa"e
or si"ilar offense in the future shall #e dealt 0ith "ore severel/.
7n the present case, 2ontalla also failed to su#"it the reEuired -)Ns despite the 0arnings and
the chances given to hi" to su#"it the sa"e. -he -)Ns 0ere taken in !!,, !!5, and !!6 and
he 0as reEuired to su#"it the sa"e in !!$, !1! and @ust recentl/, in Ae#ruar/ !11. 8is utter
disregard of the court directives and the re"inders fro" his superiors and his lapses in the
perfor"ance of his dut/ as a court stenographer caused dela/ in the speed/ disposition of the
case. -his is no longer si"ple neglect of dut/. 2ontalla, in repeatedl/ failing to su#"it the
reEuired -)Ns for several /ears no0, no longer deserves the co"passion and understanding of
the Court.
As a stenographer, 2ontalla should reali.e that the perfor"ance of his dut/ is essential to the
pro"pt and proper ad"inistration of @ustice, and his inaction ha"pers the ad"inistration of
@ustice and erodes pu#lic faith in the @udiciar/. -he Court has e4pressed its dis"a/ over the
negligence and indifference of persons involved in the ad"inistration of @ustice. No less than the
Constitution "andates that pu#lic officers "ust serve the people 0ith ut"ost respect and
13
responsi#ilit/. Pu#lic office is a pu#lic trust, and 2ontalla has 0ithout a dou#t violated this trust
#/ his failure to fulfill his dut/ as a court stenographer.
+
5HEREFORE, 0e find respondent Edgardo A. 2ontalla, )tenographer, Regional -rial Court,
Branch $, )an 2iguel, Ia"#oanga del)ur, G0ILTY of (ross Neglect of 6ut/.
9e )I&MI&& hi" fro" the service and FORFEIT his retire"ent #enefits, e4cept accrued leave
credits. 8e is further disEualified fro" ree"plo/"ent in the 5udiciar/. -his @udg"ent is
i""ediatel/ e4ecutor/.
-o avoid further dela/ in the disposition of CA'(.R. No. !1*!'27N %Heirs
of Victoriano Magallanes, et al. v. Ernesto Pono andCrispina Pono&, 2ontalla is ordered to
su#"it, 0ithin a non'e4tendi#le period of thirt/ %:!& da/s fro" receipt hereof, the transcripts of
stenographic notes "entioned a#ove, under pain of conte"pt.
&O OR)ERE).
1 )ection 1+, Rule 1:6 of the Revised Rules of Court provides1
)EC. 1+. "tenographer. ' 7t shall #e the dut/ of the stenographer 0ho has attended a session of a
court either in the "orning or in the afternoon, to deliver to the clerk of court, i""ediatel/ at the
close of such "orning or afternoon session, all the notes he has taken, to #e attached to the
record of the caseF and it shall like0ise #e the dut/ of the clerk to de"and that the stenographer
co"pl/ 0ith said dut/. -he clerk of court shall sta"p the date on 0hich such notes are received
#/ hi". 9hen such notes are transcri#ed, the transcript shall #e delivered to the clerk,
dul/ initialed on each page thereof, to #e attached to the record of the case.
9henever reEuested #/ a part/, an/ state"ent "ade #/ a @udge of first instance, or #/ a
co""issioner, 0ith reference to a case #eing tried #/ hi", or to an/ of the parties thereto, or to
an/ 0itness or attorne/, during the hearing of such case, shall #e "ade of record in the
stenographic notes.
Revised Rules on -ranscription of )tenographic Notes and -heir -rans"ission to Appellate
Courts, 1 5ul/ 1$$!.
14