Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Yee vs. Bernabe

    Uploaded by

    I took her to my penthouse and i freaked it
    17 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner may not directly file an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court on account of its concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals. While the Supreme Court has concurrent jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs, the hierarchy of courts determines the appropriate forum. Petitions against lower courts should be filed with the Regional Trial Court and those against the RTC should be filed with the Court of Appeals. Additionally, the orders denying the petitioner's motion did not finally dispose of the case and were interlocutory in nature, making them unsuitable for an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45. Therefore, the petition was denied.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    25. Yee vs. Bernabe

    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 may not directly file an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court on account of its concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals. While the Supreme Court has concurrent jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs, the hierarchy of courts determines the appropriate forum. Petitions against lower courts should be filed with the Regional Trial Court and those against the RTC should be filed with the Court of Appeals. Additionally, the orders denying the petitioner's motion did not finally dispose of the case and were interlocutory in nature, making them unsuitable for an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45. Therefore, the petition was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    17 views2 pages

    Yee vs. Bernabe

    Uploaded by

    I took her to my penthouse and i freaked it
    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner may not directly file an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court on account of its concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals. While the Supreme Court has concurrent jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs, the hierarchy of courts determines the appropriate forum. Petitions against lower courts should be filed with the Regional Trial Court and those against the RTC should be filed with the Court of Appeals. Additionally, the orders denying the petitioner's motion did not finally dispose of the case and were interlocutory in nature, making them unsuitable for an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45. Therefore, the petition was denied.

    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 2

    USA College of Law

    JIRO 4-C

    Case Name Catherine Yee vs. Hon. Estrellita Bernabe


    Topic Concurrent Jurisdiction
    Case No. |
    G.R. No. 141393 | April 19, 2006
    Date
    Ponente AZCUNA, J.
    Concurrence of jurisdiction does not grant a party seeking any of the extraordinary writs
    the absolute freedom to file his petition with the court of his choice. This Court is a court
    of last resort, and must so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the functions assigned
    to it by the Constitution and immemorial tradition. The hierarchy of courts determines
    the appropriate forum for such petitions. Thus, petitions for the issuance of such
    Doctrine
    extraordinary writs against the first level ("inferior") courts should be filed with the
    RTC, and those against the latter, with the CA. A direct invocation of this Court's
    original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special
    and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. This is the
    established policy.
    Link https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_141393_2006.html
    RELEVANT FACTS

     Petitioner Catherine Yee was charged with the violation of R.A. No. 6539, otherwise known as the
    Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972.

     Petitioner filed a motion for reduction of bail bond and voluntary surrender with the RTC.

     The motion was granted and thereafter petitioner filed a motion to conduct preliminary
    reinvestigation. The motion was treated by the trial court as a motion for preliminary investigation.

     Petitioner claimed that she was never informed or notified of the preliminary investigation as no
    subpoena had not been served upon her.

     The motion was denied by the RTC.

     Aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 directly with the Supreme Court

    Remedial Law Review Page 1 of 2


    USA College of Law
    JIRO 4-C

    ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner may file an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 directly with the
    Supreme Court on account of its concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals.
    RULING:

    No. In Ouano v. PGTT Int'l. Corp., the Supreme Court held that while its original jurisdiction to issue a
    writ of certiorari (as well as prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction) is
    concurrent with the Court of Appeals (CA) and with the RTCs, this concurrence of jurisdiction does not
    grant a party seeking any of the extraordinary writs the absolute freedom to file his petition with the
    court of his choice. The hierarchy of courts determines the appropriate forum for such petitions. Thus,
    petitions for the issuance of such extraordinary writs against the first level ("inferior") courts should be
    filed with the RTC, and those against the latter, with the CA. A direct invocation of this Court's original
    jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons
    therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. Accordingly, the petitioner must comply with the
    rule on the hierarchy of courts and file her petition with the Court of Appeals and not with the Supreme
    Court.

    Further, appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 involves the review of judgments, awards or final orders on
    the merits where only questions of law are raised and has completely dispose of the case or a particular
    matter can be the subject of such review. Hence, appeal is not allowed against interlocutory orders which
    are merely provisional and decide some point or matter but are not a final decision of the whole
    controversy.

    The assailed orders denying petitioner's motion for preliminary reinvestigation are merely interlocutory
    and do not finally dispose of the proceeding or of any independent offshoot of it. There has been no
    adjudication on the merits nor any definitive pronouncement as to the guilt or innocence of petitioner
    with respect to the crime with which she is charged. Thus the orders cannot be made subiect on an
    appeal by certiorari under Rule 45.

    RULING:

    WHEREFORE, the petition is denied.

    Remedial Law Review Page 2 of 2

    You might also like