City of Manila v. Judge Cuerdo

City of Manila v.
Judge Cuerdo
Facts:
● City of Manila, through its treasurer, Liberty Toledo, assessed taxes for the period
ranging from January to December 2002 of private respondents, SM Mart et al.
Said assessment also covered the local business taxes petitioners were
authorized to collect under the Revised Revenue Code of Manila (RRCM). Private
respondents were constrained to pay assessment under protest because
payment was a precondition for issuance of permits.
● Later, private respondents filed a complaint for recovery of illegally collected
taxes with prayer to issue TRO and writ of preliminary injunction before Judge
Cuerdo’s court (RTC Pasay). They averred that certain provisions of the RRCM are
violative of the Local Government Code’s rule on double taxation and some are
already declared unconstitutional by the DOJ.
● In an Order dated July 9, 2004, the RTC granted the writ of preliminary injunction.
As a result, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but the RTC denied it in
its Order dated October 15, 2004.
● Petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari with the CA assailing the above
orders by the RTC. The CA, in its Resolution dated April 6, 2006, dismissed the
said petition and held that it has no jurisdiction over the same.
● Further, it declared that jurisdiction is vested to the CTA, pursuant to RA no. 9282;
that a petition for certiorari seeking nullification of an interlocutory order (the MR)
issued in the said case should, likewise, be filed with the CTA. Petitioners filed a
MR, but CA denied through a Resolution dated November 29, 2006.
● Hence, this special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 seeking to set aside
the CA’s resolutions.
Issue:
WON CA erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction.
Held:
Petition denied - moot and academic
The parties failed to inform the Court that the decision of the RTC enjoining the
defendants from collecting taxes under the RRCM has become final and executory.
However, the court finds it necessary to resolve the issue on jurisdiction to guide the
bench and bar.
Procedural Issues - Wrong Remedy

Petitioners availed of the wrong remedy when they filed the instant special civil action
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court in assailing the Resolutions of the CA
which dismissed their petition filed with the said court and their motion for
reconsideration of such dismissal.
There is no dispute that the assailed Resolutions of the CA are in the nature of a final
order as they disposed of the petition completely. It is settled that in cases where an
assailed judgment or order is considered final, the remedy of the aggrieved party is
appeal. Hence, in the instant case, petitioner should have filed a petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45, which is a continuation of the appellate process over the
original case.
A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is an original or independent action
based on grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and it
will lie only if there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law. As such, it cannot be a substitute for a lost appeal.
Nonetheless, the SC entertained the petition as a petition for review on certiorari due to
the presence of the following: (1) the petition for certiorari was filed within the
reglementary period within which to file a petition for review on certiorari; (2) when
errors of judgment are averred; and (3) when there is sufficient reason to justify the
relaxation of the rules. These are all present in the case at bar.
Substantial Issue - CTA’s jurisdiction

CTA has jurisdiction over a special civil action for certiorari assailing an interlocutory
order issued by the RTC in a local tax case.
RA no. 1125, as amended by 9282, which expanded the CTA’s jurisdiction, did not
expressly provide for such a jurisdiction. What it states is that CTA shall have
jurisdiction over “Decisions, orders or resolutions of the Regional Trial Courts in local
tax cases originally decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their original or
appellate jurisdiction.” There is no categorical statement under the law giving CTA
jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari assailing interlocutory orders issued by the RTC
in local tax cases filed before it.
The prevailing doctrine is that the authority to issue writs of certiorari involves the
exercise of original jurisdiction which must be expressly conferred by the Constitution or
by law and cannot be implied from the mere existence of appellate jurisdiction.
The foregoing notwithstanding, while there is no express grant of such power, with
respect to the CTA, Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides, nonetheless,
that judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as
may be established by law and that judicial power includes the duty of the courts of
justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality
of the Government.
On the strength of the above constitutional provisions, it can be fairly interpreted that
the power of the CTA includes that of determining whether or not there has been grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the RTC in
issuing an interlocutory order in cases falling within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction
of the tax court. It, thus, follows that the CTA, by constitutional mandate, is vested with
jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari in these cases.

City of Manila v. Judge Cuerdo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

City of Manila v. Judge Cuerdo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

City of Manila v.

Procedural Issues - Wrong Remedy

Substantial Issue - CTA’s jurisdiction

You might also like