Professional Documents
Culture Documents
City of Manila V Cuerdo
City of Manila V Cuerdo
_______________
* EN BANC.
183
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001536ddca010de16b457003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/22
3/13/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 715
184
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001536ddca010de16b457003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/22
3/13/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 715
185
186
187
188
189
PERALTA, 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 Resolutions1 dated April 6, 2006 and
November 29, 2006 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CAG.R.
SP No. 87948.
The antecedents of the case, as summarized by the CA,
are as follows:
_______________
1 Penned by Associate Justice Rebecca de GuiaSalvador, with
Associate Justices Ruben T. Reyes (now a retired member of this Court)
and Aurora SantiagoLagman, concurring; Annexes “A” and “B,” Rollo, pp.
4348; 4951.
190
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001536ddca010de16b457003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/22
3/13/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 715
_______________
2 Rollo, p. 44. (Italics and emphasis in the original; citations omitted)
191
_______________
3 Records, Vol. II, pp. 476480.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001536ddca010de16b457003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/22
3/13/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 715
192
_______________
8 Rollo, p. 20. (Emphasis in the original).
9 Records, Vol. II, pp. 761762.
193
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001536ddca010de16b457003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/22
3/13/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 715
The parties did not inform the Court but based on the
records, the above Decision had already become final and
executory per the Certificate of Finality11 issued by the
same trial court on October 20, 2008. In fact, a Writ of
Execution12 was issued by the RTC on November 25, 2009.
In view of the foregoing, it clearly appears that the
issues raised in the present petition, which merely involve
the incident on the preliminary injunction issued by the
RTC, have already become moot and academic considering
that the trial court, in its decision on the merits in the
main case, has already ruled in favor of respondents and
that the same decision is now final and executory. Well
entrenched is the rule that where the issues have become
moot and academic, there
_______________
10 Id., at p. 762. (Emphasis in the original)
11 Id., at p. 822.
12 Id., at p. 837.
194
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001536ddca010de16b457003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/22
3/13/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 715
_______________
13 Garcia v. COMELEC, 328 Phil. 288, 292; 258 SCRA 754, 757 (1996).
14 Caneland Sugar Corporation v. Alon, G.R. No. 142896, September
12, 2007, 533 SCRA 28, 33.
15 Republic of the Philippines, represented by Abusama M. Alid,
OfficerinCharge, Department of AgricultureRegional Field Unit XII (DA
RFUXII) v. Abdulwahab A. Bayao, et al., G.R. No. 179492, June 5, 2013,
697 SCRA 313.
195
_______________
16 Mendez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 174937, June 13, 2012, 672
SCRA 200, 207.
17 Id.
18 Tagle v. Equitable PCI Bank, G.R. No. 172299, April 22, 2008, 552
SCRA 424, 444, citing Oaminal v. Castillo, 459 Phil. 542, 556; 413 SCRA
189, 202 (2003); Republic v. Court of Appeals, 379 Phil. 92, 98; 322 SCRA
81, 8889 (2000); Delsan Transport Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 335
Phil. 1066, 1075; 268 SCRA 597, 605 (1997); Banco Filipino Savings and
Mortgage Bank v. Court of Appeals, 389 Phil. 644, 655; 334 SCRA 305,
316317 (2000).
196
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001536ddca010de16b457003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/22
3/13/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 715
197
198
199
200
_______________
19 Emphasis supplied.
20 Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board v. Lubrica, 497
Phil. 313, 322; 457 SCRA 800, 809 (2005); Veloria v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
94771, July 29, 1992, 211 SCRA 907, 915.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001536ddca010de16b457003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/22
3/13/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 715
201
_______________
21 189 Phil. 581; 101 SCRA 769 (1980).
22 G.R. Nos. 88158 and 9710809, March 4, 1992, 206 SCRA 779.
23 Supra note 20.
24 Supra note 20.
25 G.R. No. 114135, October 7, 1994, 237 SCRA 552.
26 Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board v. Lubrica,
supra note 20; Veloria v. COMELEC, supra note 20; Garcia v.
Sandiganbayan, id., at pp. 563564; Garcia v. De Jesus, supra note 22, at
pp. 787788; Pimentel v. COMELEC, supra note 21, at p. 587; p. 782.
27 Supra note 25.
28 An Act Further Defining the Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan,
Amending for the Purpose Presidential Decree No. 1606, As Amended,
Providing Funds Therefor, And for Other Purposes.
202
203
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001536ddca010de16b457003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/22
3/13/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 715
_______________
29 118 Phil. 1022; 9 SCRA 189 (1963).
30 J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Jaramillo, et al., supra, at p. 1026; p. 193.
31 G.R. No. 101630, August 24, 1992, 212 SCRA 823.
32 De Jesus v. Court of Appeals, supra, at pp. 827828.
33 G.R. No. 192793, February 22, 2011, 643 SCRA 631, 635636.
34 G.R. No. 195953, August 9, 2011, 655 SCRA 241, 246247.
35 Southern Cross Cement Corporation v. Philippine Cement
Manufacturers Corp., 478 Phil. 85, 125; 434 SCRA 65, 85 (2004).
204
such power. Thus, the Court agrees with the ruling of the
CA that since appellate jurisdiction over private
respondents’ complaint for tax refund is vested in the CTA,
it follows that a petition for certiorari seeking nullification
of an interlocutory order issued in the said case should,
likewise, be filed with the same court. To rule otherwise
would lead to an absurd situation where one court decides
an appeal in the main case while another court rules on an
incident in the very same case.
Stated differently, it would be somewhat incongruent
with the pronounced judicial abhorrence to split
jurisdiction to conclude that the intention of the law is to
divide the authority over a local tax case filed with the RTC
by giving to the CA or this Court jurisdiction to issue a writ
of certiorari against interlocutory orders of the RTC but
giving to the CTA the jurisdiction over the appeal from the
decision of the trial court in the same case. It is more in
consonance with logic and legal soundness to conclude that
the grant of appellate jurisdiction to the CTA over tax cases
filed in and decided by the RTC carries with it the power to
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001536ddca010de16b457003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/22
3/13/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 715
_______________
36 Breslin v. Luzon Stevedoring Company, 84 Phil. 618, 623 (1949).
205
_______________
37 4 Am. Jur. 2d, Appeal and Error, §5, p. 536; 2 Am. Jur., Appeal and
Error, §9, 850.
38 Santiago v. Vasquez, G.R. Nos. 9928990, January 27, 1993, 217
SCRA 633, 648.
206
_______________
39 TreasurerAssessor v. University of the Philippines, 148 Phil. 526,
539; 38 SCRA 509, 521 (1971); Amalgamated Laborers’ Association v.
Court of Industrial Relations, 131 Phil. 374, 380; 22 SCRA 1266, 1272
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001536ddca010de16b457003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/22
3/13/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 715
207
SO ORDERED.
Petition denied.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001536ddca010de16b457003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/22