Yee vs. Bernabe
Yee vs. Bernabe
JIRO 4-C
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.
Aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 directly with the Supreme Court
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: