Provisional Remedies and Special Civil Actions

Certiorari
In FILOMENA CABLING vs RODRIGO DANGCALAN, G.R. No. 187696, June 15, 2016 the
Supreme Court held that
We already declared that all cases involving title to or possession of real property with an assessed
value of less than P20,000, if outside Metro Manila, fall under the original jurisdiction of the municipal trial
court. This pronouncement was based on Republic Act No. 7691, which was approved by Congress on 25
March 1994. We clarified that the actions envisaged are accion publiciana and reivindicatoria. To determine
which court has jurisdiction over the action, the complaint must allege the assessed value of the real property
subject of the complaint. The Court explained further in Penta Pacific Realty Corporation v. Ley Construction
and Development Corporation that its jurisdiction would now be determined by the assessed value of the
disputed land, or of the adjacent lots if it is not declared for taxation purposes. If the assessed value is not
alleged in the complaint, the action should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The reason behind this rule is
that the trial court is not afforded the means of determining from the allegations of the basic pleading whether
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action pertains to it or to another court. After all, courts cannot take
judicial notice of the assessed or market value of lands.

In DR. WENIFREDO T. OATE vs COMMISSION ON AUDIT, G.R. No. 213660, July 5, 2016
This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65, of the Rules of Court (Rules), to
reverse the Commission on Audit ( COA) Decision No. 2014-1261 dated June 20, 2014, which ruled that the
payment of the legal sevices of Atty. Alex A. Arejola shall be the personal liability of petitioner Dr. Wenifredo
T. Ofiate (Dr. Onate). The Court has invariably sustained the statutory authority of the OSG and the OGCC as
well as the necessity of CbA concurrence in the cases of government-owned and/or controlled corporations,
local government units, and even a state college like the CNSC. We see no legal justification to deviate from
the settled jurisprudence. Here, the COA noted, and Dr. Ofiate never disputed, that while the OSG
authorization was obtained the CNSC belatedly requested for the COA's concurrence on May 27, 2010, which
is less than a week prior to the expiration of the contract on June 1, 2010. The rule is abso!ute; partial
compliance or honest mistake due to ignorance of the law is not and can never be a valid defense.

In SUGARSTEEL INDUSTRIAL, INC. and MR. BEN YAPJOCO vs VICTOR ALBINA,

VICENTE UY and ALEX VELASQUEZ, G.R. No. 168749, June 06, 2016
The petition for review on certiorari lacks merit. The CA acted in accordance with the pertinent law
and jurisprudence. As a rule, the certiorari proceeding, being confined to the correction of acts rendered
without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion that amounts to lack or excess
of jurisdiction, is limited in scope and narrow in character. As such, the judicial inquiry in a special civil action
for certiorari in labor litigation ascertains only whether or not the NLRC acted without jurisdiction or in
excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction.
We find that the CA did not exceed its jurisdiction by reviewing the evidence and deciding the case on the
merits despite the judgment of the NLRC already being final. We have frequently expounded on the
competence of the CA in a special civil action for certiorari to review the factual findings of the NLRC.