Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 04 GIOS-SAMAR Vs DOTC

    Uploaded by

    Athena Venenciano
    445 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner's direct resort to the Court was improper. While the Court has original jurisdiction over certain cases, litigants do not have unlimited discretion to invoke this. According to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, direct recourse is only allowed to resolve questions of law, not issues of fact or mixed questions of fact and law. The Court further noted that it is a court of last resort and should not be burdened with cases in the first instance, exercising its original jurisdiction only when absolutely necessary.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    04_GIOS-SAMAR_vs_DOTC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner's direct resort to the Court was improper. While the Court has original jurisdiction over certain cases, litigants do not have unlimited discretion to invoke this. According to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, direct recourse is only allowed to resolve questions of law, not issues of fact or mixed questions of fact and law. The Court further noted that it is a court of last resort and should not be burdened with cases in the first instance, exercising its original jurisdiction only when absolutely necessary.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    445 views1 page

    04 GIOS-SAMAR Vs DOTC

    Uploaded by

    Athena Venenciano
    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner's direct resort to the Court was improper. While the Court has original jurisdiction over certain cases, litigants do not have unlimited discretion to invoke this. According to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, direct recourse is only allowed to resolve questions of law, not issues of fact or mixed questions of fact and law. The Court further noted that it is a court of last resort and should not be burdened with cases in the first instance, exercising its original jurisdiction only when absolutely necessary.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    GIOS-SAMAR v DOTC

    G.R. No.: 217158 12 March 2019


    Jardeleza J. Topic: Power of the Court to Suspend ROC
    FACTS:
     The DOTC and its attached agency, the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines (CAAP) posted an invitation to pre-qualify
    and bid on the airport development, operations, and maintenance of the Bacolod, Silay, Iloilo, Laguindingan, Panglao, and
    Puerto Princesa airports. The Invitation stated that the projects aim to improve services and enhance the airside and landside
    facilities of the key regional airports through concession agreements with the private sector. The projects will be awarded
    through competitive bidding and the concession will last for a period of 30 years.
     The projects are now bundled into 2 groups. Bidders may bid for only Bundle 1 (Bacolod-Silay-Iloilo) or Bundle 2 (Davao,
    Laguindingan, Panglao) or bid for both Bundle 1 and 2.
     Petitioner GIOS-SAMAR, Inc., suing as a taxpayer and invoking the transcendental importance of the issue, filed the present
    petition for prohibition.
     It assails the constitutionality of the bundling of the Projects and seeks to enjoin the DOTC and CAAP from proceeding with the
    bidding of the same. It argues that:
    1. The bundling of the Projects violates the constitutional prohibitions on the anti-dummy and the grant of opportunity to the
    general public to invest in public utilities as it allows companies with shaky financial backgrounds to have access to the
    Projects
    2. It violates the prohibition on monopolies because it allows one winning bidder to operate and maintain several airports.
    3. It will perpetrate an undue restraint of trade.
    4. The PBAC of the DOTC committed GADALEJ when it bundled the projects without legal authority
    5. The bundling made a mockery of public bidding
     Petitioner states that there is extreme urgency to enjoin the bidding of the Bundled Projects so as not to cause irreparable damage
    and injury to the coffers of the government.
     DOTC counters that the petition is premature and that petitioner has no legal standing
     CAAP asserts that the petition violated the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
     Petitioner argues that its direct resort to the SC is justified as the matter of prohibiting the bidding process of the illegally
    bundled projects are matters of public interest and transcendental importance.

    ISSUE/S:
    WON the direct resort to the SC by the petitioner is proper
    DOCTRINES | HELD: NO
    The 1987 Constitution and the Rules of Court promulgated, pursuant to its provisions, granted us original jurisdiction over certain cases.
    In some instances, this jurisdiction is shared with Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) and the Court of Appeals (CA). However, litigants do not
    have unfettered discretion to invoke the Court's original jurisdiction. The doctrine of hierarchy of courts dictates that, direct recourse to
    this Court is allowed only to resolve questions of law, notwithstanding the invocation of paramount or transcendental importance of the
    action. This doctrine is not mere policy, rather, it is a constitutional filtering mechanism designed to enable the Court to focus on the more
    fundamental and essential tasks assigned to it by the highest law of the land.

    The Supreme Court is a court of last resort, and must so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it by the
    fundamental charter and immemorial tradition. It cannot and should not be burdened with the task of dealing with causes in the first
    instance. Its original jurisdiction to issue the so-called extraordinary writs should be exercised only where absolutely necessary or where
    serious and important reasons exist therefor

    NOTES:
    ●

    You might also like