Rule No.

:
Section No/s:

MARY JANE G. DY CHIAO, petitioner, vs. SEBASTIAN BOLIVAR, Sheriff IV, Regional
Trial Court, Branch 19, in Naga City, respondent.

G.R. No. 192491. August 17, 2016.

BERSAMIN, J.

Doctrine: Doctrine of Judicial Stability— Courts and tribunals with the same or equal authority are not permitted
to interfere with each other’s respective cases, much less their orders or judgments therein. To allow the petitioner’s
action in the RTC would disregard the doctrine of judicial stability or noninterference, under which no court has the
power to interfere by injunction with the judgments or decrees of a court of concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction.
Courts and tribunals with the same or equal authority — even those exercising concurrent and coordinate jurisdiction
— are not permitted to interfere with each other’s respective cases, much less their orders or judgments therein. This
is an elementary principle of the highest importance essential to the orderly administration of justice.

Facts: The CA promulgated its decision declaring the petitioner subsidiarily liable to pay the
respondent. The same has attained finality. Execution proceedings followed in due course upon
issuance of the writ of execution by the RTC Br. 19 as the court of origin. However, the Sheriff of
the said branch filed a sheriff’s report to the effect that the amount could not be satisfied and that
the liability could be paid out of the assets of the petitioner under her subsidiary liability as decreed
in the final judgment. Accordingly, the respondent recommended that an alias writ of execution
be issued against the properties of petitioner. The RTC Br. 19 issued the writ of execution directed
the respondent to levy as much properties of the petitioner as would be sufficient to satisfy the
amount and to sell the properties at public auction. The respondent then proceeded with the public
auction of the petitioner’s levied properties and sold two parcels of her realty to the highest bidders.
But, the respondent allegedly without any order from the RTC Br. 19 or without an alias writ of
execution being issued and without notice to the petitioner, pursued further execution proceedings
against the petitioner. The notice of levy was issued by the respondent to petitioner covering two
parcels of land. The said notice stated that it was being issued by virtue of a writ of execution, it
did not bear the date of its issuance. The petitioner received a notice of sale of real property on
execution stating that the two real properties of the petitioner were being levied to satisfy the
amount. To fend off the public auction, the petitioner filed a Petition for Prohibition with
Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. The Executive Judge of
the RTC in Naga City issued 72-hour temporary restraining order enjoining the respondent from
conducting the scheduled public auction. The said petition raffled to the RTC Branch 23 in Naga
City. After receiving the parties’ pleadings, the RTC Br. 23 dismissed the case for lack jurisdiction
stating that the processes being undertaken by the respondent were deemed proceedings in the
same civil case assigned to and still pending before the RTC Br. 19 and the said branch continued
to exercise general supervision and control over such proceedings. The motion for reconsideration
was denied. Petitioner then filed in the CA her Motion for Extension of Time to File Verified
Petition for Review on Certiorari, stating that she would be raising a question of law. The same
was denied by the CA.
Issues:
(1) Whether it was proper for the appellate court to deny petitioner’s motion for extension which
indicated that it would be raising a question of law on the ground that it should have been filed
before the Supreme Court despite the recognized principle of Hierarchy of Courts?
(2) Whether or not it was proper for the original petition for prohibition before the Regional Trial
Court (Br. 23) to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction?

Ruling:
(1) Yes. The denial is proper. The petitioner was patently guilty of taking an erroneous appeal
in view of her manifest intention to limit her appeal to questions of law. Such an appeal would
only be by petition for review on certiorari, to be filed in this Court pursuant to Section 1, Rule
45 of the Rules of Court, as follows:

“Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court.—A party desiring to appeal by certiorari
from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the
Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court
a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which
must be distinctly set forth.”

Pursuant to Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court, an appeal raising only questions of law
brought to the CA instead of to this Court shall be dismissed. The same rule expressly forbids the
erroneous appeal to be transferred to the Court.

Clearly therefore, the proper remedy under the afore-quoted rule where only questions of law are
raised or involved, is a petition for review on certiorari which shall be filed with the Supreme
Court and not with Court of Appeals.

The petitioner obviously failed to perfect her appeal from the dismissal by the RTC (Branch 23)
of the case commenced through her so-called Petition with Application for a Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. The consequence of such failure to perfect the
appeal was to render the dismissal final and immutable. This meant that no court, including this
Court, could thereafter alter, modify or reverse the result. As such, her present appeal to this Court
cannot but be viewed and condemned as a futile attempt to resurrect the lost appeal.

(2) Yes. The SC would still uphold the dismissal of the case by RTC (Branch 23) considering
that the assailed action and processes undertaken by the respondent to levy the properties of the
petitioner were deemed proceedings in the same civil action assigned to the RTC (Branch 19) as
the court that had issued the writ of execution. Such proceedings, being incidents of the execution
of the final and executory decision of the RTC (Branch 19), remained within its exclusive control.

To allow the petitioner’s action in the RTC (Branch 23) would disregard the doctrine of judicial
stability or noninterference, under which no court has the power to interfere by injunction with the
judgments or decrees of a court of concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction. Courts and tribunals with
the same or equal authority — even those exercising concurrent and coordinate jurisdiction — are
not permitted to interfere with each other’s respective cases, much less their orders or judgments
therein. This is an elementary principle of the highest importance essential to the orderly
administration of justice. Its observance is not required on the grounds of judicial comity and
courtesy alone; it is enforced to prevent unseemly, expensive, and dangerous conflicts of
jurisdiction and of processes. A contrary rule would dangerously lead to confusion and seriously
hamper the administration of justice.