12/13/2014

G.R.No.175723

TodayisSaturday,December13,2014

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.175723February4,2014
THE CITY OF MANILA, represented by MAYOR JOSE L. ATIENZA, JR., and MS. LIBERTY M. TOLEDO, in
hercapacityastheCityTreasurerofManila,Petitioners,
vs.
HON. CARIDAD H. GRECIACUERDO, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 112, Pasay City SM MART, INC. SM PRIME HOLDINGS, INC. STAR APPLIANCES CENTER
SUPERVALUE, INC. ACE HARDWARE PHILIPPINES, INC. WATSON PERSONAL CARE STORES, PHILS.,
INC. JOLLIMART PHILS., CORP. SURPLUS MARKETING CORPORATION and SIGNATURE LINES,
Respondents.
DECISION
PERALTA,J.:
BeforetheCourtisaspecialcivilactionforcertiorariunderRule65oftheRulesofCourtseekingtoreverseand
setasidetheResolutions1datedApril6,2006andNovember29,2006oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)inCAG.R.
SPNo.87948.
Theantecedentsofthecase,assummarizedbytheCA,areasfollows:
The record shows that petitioner City of Manila, through its treasurer, petitioner Liberty Toledo, assessed taxes
for the taxable period from January to December 2002 against private respondents SM Mart, Inc., SM Prime
Holdings,Inc.,StarAppliancesCenter,Supervalue,Inc.,AceHardwarePhilippines,Inc.,WatsonsPersonalCare
Stores Phils., Inc., Jollimart Philippines Corp., Surplus Marketing Corp. and Signature Lines. In addition to the
taxespurportedlyduefromprivaterespondentspursuanttoSection14,15,16,17oftheRevisedRevenueCode
ofManila(RRCM),saidassessmentcoveredthelocalbusinesstaxespetitionerswereauthorizedtocollectunder
Section 21 of the same Code. Because payment of the taxes assessed was a precondition for the issuance of
their business permits, private respondents were constrained to pay the P19,316,458.77 assessment under
protest.
On January 24, 2004, private respondents filed [with the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City] the complaint
denominated as one for "Refund or Recovery of Illegally and/or ErroneouslyCollected Local Business Tax,
ProhibitionwithPrayertoIssueTROandWritofPreliminaryInjunction"
which was docketed as Civil Case No. 040019CFM before public respondent's sala [at Branch 112]. In the
amended complaint they filed on February 16, 2004, private respondents alleged that, in relation to Section 21
thereof,Sections14,15,16,17,18,19and20oftheRRCMwereviolativeofthelimitationsandguidelinesunder
Section143(h)ofRepublicAct.No.7160[LocalGovernmentCode]ondoubletaxation.Theyfurtheraverredthat
petitionercity'sOrdinanceNo.8011whichamendedpertinentportionsoftheRRCMhadalreadybeendeclared
tobeillegalandunconstitutionalbytheDepartmentofJustice.2
In its Order3 dated July 9, 2004, the RTC granted private respondents' application for a writ of preliminary
injunction.
PetitionersfiledaMotionforReconsideration4buttheRTCdenieditinitsOrder5datedOctober15,2004.
Petitioners then filed a special civil action for certiorari with the CA assailing the July 9, 2004 and October 15,
2004OrdersoftheRTC.6
InitsResolutionpromulgatedonApril6,2006,theCAdismissedpetitioners'petitionforcertiorariholdingthatit
hasnojurisdictionoverthesaidpetition.TheCAruledthatsinceappellatejurisdictionoverprivaterespondents'
complaintfortaxrefund,whichwasfiledwiththeRTC,isvestedintheCourtofTaxAppeals(CTA),pursuanttoits
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_175723_2014.html

1/8

12/13/2014

G.R.No.175723

expanded jurisdiction under Republic Act No. 9282 (RA 9282), it follows that a petition for certiorari seeking
nullificationofaninterlocutoryorderissuedinthesaidcaseshould,likewise,befiledwiththeCTA.
PetitionersfiledaMotionforReconsideration,7buttheCAdenieditinitsResolutiondatedNovember29,2006.
Hence,thepresentpetitionraisingthefollowingissues:
I Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals gravely erred in dismissing the case for lack of
jurisdiction.
IIWhetherornottheHonorableRegionalTrialCourtgravelyabuse[d]itsdiscretionamountingtolackor
excess of jurisdiction in enjoining by issuing a Writ of Injunction the petitioners, their agents and/or
authorized representatives from implementing Section 21 of the Revised Revenue Code of Manila, as
amended,againstprivaterespondents.
IIIWhetherornottheHonorableRegionalTrialCourtgravelyabuse[d]itsdiscretionamountingtolackor
excessofjurisdictioninissuingtheWritofInjunctiondespitefailureofprivaterespondentstomakeawritten
claimfortaxcreditorrefundwiththeCityTreasurerofManila.
IVWhetherornottheHonorableRegionalTrialCourtgravelyabuse[d]itsdiscretionamountingtolackor
excessofjurisdictionconsideringthatunderSection21oftheManilaRevenueCode,asamended,theyare
merecollectingagentsoftheCityGovernment.
VWhetherornottheHonorableRegionalTrialCourtgravelyabuse[d]itsdiscretionamountingtolackor
excessofjurisdictioninissuingtheWritofInjunctionbecausepetitionerCityofManilaanditsconstituents
wouldresulttogreaterdamageandprejudicethereof.(sic)8
Withoutfirstresolvingtheaboveissues,thisCourtfindsthattheinstantpetitionshouldbedeniedforbeingmoot
andacademic.
Uponperusaloftheoriginalrecordsoftheinstantcase,thisCourtdiscoveredthataDecision9inthemaincase
hadalreadybeenrenderedbytheRTConAugust13,2007,thedispositiveportionofwhichreadsasfollows:
WHEREFORE,inviewoftheforegoing,thisCourtherebyrendersJUDGMENTinfavoroftheplaintiffandagainst
thedefendanttograntataxrefundorcreditfortaxespaidpursuanttoSection21oftheRevenueCodeofthe
CityofManilaasamendedfortheyear2002inthefollowingamounts:
ToplaintiffSMMart,Inc.

P11,462,525.02

ToplaintiffSMPrimeHoldings,Inc.

3,118,104.63

ToplaintiffStarAppliancesCenter

2,152,316.54

ToplaintiffSupervalue,Inc.

1,362,750.34

ToplaintiffAceHardwarePhils.,Inc.

419,689.04

ToplaintiffWatsonsPersonalCareHealth

231,453.62

StoresPhils.,Inc.
ToplaintiffJollimartPhils.,Corp.

140,908.54

ToplaintiffSurplusMarketingCorp.

220,204.70

ToplaintiffSignatureMktg.Corp.

94,906.34

TOTAL:

P19,316,458.77

Defendants are further enjoined from collecting taxes under Section 21, Revenue Code of Manila from herein
plaintiff.
SOORDERED.10
ThepartiesdidnotinformtheCourtbutbasedontherecords,theaboveDecisionhadalreadybecomefinaland
executory per the Certificate of Finality11 issued by the same trial court on October 20, 2008. In fact, a Writ of
Execution12wasissuedbytheRTConNovember25,2009.Inviewoftheforegoing,itclearlyappearsthatthe
issuesraisedinthepresentpetition,whichmerelyinvolvetheincidentonthepreliminaryinjunctionissuedbythe
RTC,havealreadybecomemootandacademicconsideringthatthetrialcourt,initsdecisiononthemeritsinthe
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_175723_2014.html

2/8

12/13/2014

G.R.No.175723

maincase,hasalreadyruledinfavorofrespondentsandthatthesamedecisionisnowfinalandexecutory.Well
entrenchedistherulethatwheretheissueshavebecomemootandacademic,thereisnojusticiablecontroversy,
therebyrenderingtheresolutionofthesameofnopracticaluseorvalue.13
In any case, the Court finds it necessary to resolve the issue on jurisdiction raised by petitioners owing to its
significance and for future guidance of both bench and bar. It is a settled principle that courts will decide a
questionotherwisemootandacademicifitiscapableofrepetition,yetevadingreview.14
However,beforeproceeding,toresolvethequestiononjurisdiction,theCourtdeemsitpropertolikewiseaddress
aproceduralerrorwhichpetitionerscommitted.
PetitionersavailedofthewrongremedywhentheyfiledtheinstantspecialcivilactionforcertiorariunderRule65
oftheRulesofCourtinassailingtheResolutionsoftheCAwhichdismissedtheirpetitionfiledwiththesaidcourt
andtheirmotionforreconsiderationofsuchdismissal.ThereisnodisputethattheassailedResolutionsoftheCA
areinthenatureofafinalorderastheydisposedofthepetitioncompletely.Itissettledthatincaseswherean
assailedjudgmentororderisconsideredfinal,theremedyoftheaggrievedpartyisappeal.Hence,intheinstant
case,petitionershouldhavefiledapetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45,whichisacontinuationofthe
appellateprocessovertheoriginalcase.15
PetitionersshouldberemindedoftheequallysettledrulethataspecialcivilactionforcertiorariunderRule65is
anoriginalorindependentactionbasedongraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdiction
anditwilllieonlyifthereisnoappealoranyotherplain,speedy,andadequateremedyintheordinarycourseof
law.16Assuch,itcannotbeasubstituteforalostappeal.17
Nonetheless, in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of substantial
justice,thisCourthas,before,treatedapetitionforcertiorariasapetitionforreviewoncertiorari,particularly(1)if
the petition for certiorari was filed within the reglementary period within which to file a petition for review on
certiorari(2)whenerrorsofjudgmentareaverredand(3)whenthereissufficientreasontojustifytherelaxation
of the rules.18 Considering that the present petition was filed within the 15day reglementary period for filing a
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, that an error of judgment is averred, and because of the
significanceoftheissueonjurisdiction,theCourtdeemsitproperandjustifiedtorelaxtherulesand,thus,treat
theinstantpetitionforcertiorariasapetitionforreviewoncertiorari.
Havingdisposedoftheproceduralaspect,wenowturntothecentralissueinthiscase.Thebasicquestionposed
before this Court is whether or not the CTA has jurisdiction over a special civil action for certiorari assailing an
interlocutoryorderissuedbytheRTCinalocaltaxcase.
ThisCourtrulesintheaffirmative.
OnJune16,1954,CongressenactedRepublicActNo.1125(RA1125)creatingtheCTAandgivingtothesaid
courtjurisdictionoverthefollowing:
(1) Decisions of the Collector of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of
internalrevenuetaxes,feesorothercharges,penaltiesimposedinrelationthereto,orothermattersarising
under the National Internal Revenue Code or other law or part of law administered by the Bureau of
InternalRevenue
(2)DecisionsoftheCommissionerofCustomsincasesinvolvingliabilityforcustomsduties,feesorother
money charges seizure, detention or release of property affected fines, forfeitures or other penalties
imposed in relation thereto or other matters arising under the Customs Law or other law or part of law
administeredbytheBureauofCustomsand
(3) Decisions of provincial or City Boards of Assessment Appeals in cases involving the assessment and
taxationofrealpropertyorothermattersarisingundertheAssessmentLaw,includingrulesandregulations
relativethereto.
On March 30, 2004, the Legislature passed into law Republic Act No. 9282 (RA 9282) amending RA 1125 by
expandingthejurisdictionoftheCTA,enlargingitsmembershipandelevatingitsranktothelevelofacollegiate
courtwithspecialjurisdiction.Pertinentportionsoftheamendatoryactprovidesthus:
Sec.7.Jurisdiction.TheCTAshallexercise:
a.Exclusiveappellatejurisdictiontoreviewbyappeal,ashereinprovided:
1. Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed
assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation
thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue or other laws
administeredbytheBureauofInternalRevenue
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_175723_2014.html

3/8

12/13/2014

G.R.No.175723

2.InactionbytheCommissionerofInternalRevenueincasesinvolvingdisputedassessments,
refundsofinternalrevenuetaxes,feesorothercharges,penaltiesinrelationsthereto,orother
matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the
Bureau of Internal Revenue, where the National Internal Revenue Code provides a specific
periodofaction,inwhichcasetheinactionshallbedeemedadenial
3. Decisions, orders or resolutions of the Regional Trial Courts in local tax cases originally
decidedorresolvedbythemintheexerciseoftheiroriginalorappellatejurisdiction
4. Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in cases involving liability for customs duties,
fees or other money charges, seizure, detention or release of property affected, fines,
forfeitures or other penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the Customs
LaworotherlawsadministeredbytheBureauofCustoms
5. Decisions of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdictionovercasesinvolvingtheassessmentandtaxationofrealpropertyoriginallydecided
bytheprovincialorcityboardofassessmentappeals
6. Decisions of the Secretary of Finance on customs cases elevated to him automatically for
reviewfromdecisionsoftheCommissionerofCustomswhichareadversetotheGovernment
underSection2315oftheTariffandCustomsCode
7. Decisions of the Secretary of Trade and Industry, in the case of nonagricultural product,
commodity or article, and the Secretary of Agriculture in the case of agricultural product,
commodityorarticle,involvingdumpingandcountervailingdutiesunderSection301and302,
respectively,oftheTariffandCustomsCode,andsafeguardmeasuresunderRepublicActNo.
8800,whereeitherpartymayappealthedecisiontoimposeornottoimposesaidduties.
b.Jurisdictionovercasesinvolvingcriminaloffensesashereinprovided:
1.ExclusiveoriginaljurisdictionoverallcriminaloffensesarisingfromviolationsoftheNational
Internal Revenue Code or Tariff and Customs Code and other laws administered by the
Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Bureau of Customs: Provided, however, That offenses or
feloniesmentionedinthisparagraphwheretheprincipalamountoftaxesandfees,exclusive
of charges and penalties, claimed is less than One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) or where
thereisnospecifiedamountclaimedshallbetriedbytheregularCourtsandthejurisdictionof
the CTA shall be appellate. Any provision of law or the Rules of Court to the contrary
notwithstanding,thecriminalactionandthecorrespondingcivilactionfortherecoveryofcivil
liability for taxes and penalties shall at all times be simultaneously instituted with, and jointly
determinedinthesameproceedingbytheCTA,thefilingofthecriminalactionbeingdeemed
tonecessarilycarrywithitthefilingofthecivilaction,andnorighttoreservethefilingofsuch
civilactionseparatelyfromthecriminalactionwillberecognized.
2.Exclusiveappellatejurisdictionincriminaloffenses:
a.Overappealsfromthejudgments,resolutionsorordersoftheRegionalTrialCourtsintaxcases
originallydecidedbythem,intheirrespectedterritorialjurisdiction.
b.Overpetitionsforreviewofthejudgments,resolutionsorordersoftheRegionalTrialCourtsinthe
exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over tax cases originally decided by the Metropolitan Trial
Courts,MunicipalTrialCourtsandMunicipalCircuitTrialCourtsintheirrespectivejurisdiction.
c.Jurisdictionovertaxcollectioncasesashereinprovided:
1. Exclusive original jurisdiction in tax collection cases involving final and executory
assessmentsfortaxes,fees,chargesandpenalties:Provides,however,thatcollectioncases
wheretheprincipalamountoftaxesandfees,exclusiveofchargesandpenalties,claimedis
lessthanOnemillionpesos(P1,000,000.00)shallbetriedbytheproperMunicipalTrialCourt,
MetropolitanTrialCourtandRegionalTrialCourt.
2.Exclusiveappellatejurisdictionintaxcollectioncases:
a. Over appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in tax
collectioncasesoriginallydecidedbythem,intheirrespectiveterritorialjurisdiction.
b.Overpetitionsforreviewofthejudgments,resolutionsorordersoftheRegionalTrialCourtsinthe
ExerciseoftheirappellatejurisdictionovertaxcollectioncasesoriginallydecidedbytheMetropolitan
TrialCourts,MunicipalTrialCourtsandMunicipalCircuitTrialCourts,intheirrespectivejurisdiction.19
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_175723_2014.html

4/8

12/13/2014

G.R.No.175723

Aperusaloftheaboveprovisionswouldshowthat,whileitisclearlystatedthattheCTAhasexclusiveappellate
jurisdictionoverdecisions,ordersorresolutionsoftheRTCsinlocaltaxcasesoriginallydecidedorresolvedby
themintheexerciseoftheiroriginalorappellatejurisdiction,thereisnocategoricalstatementunderRA1125as
well as the amendatory RA 9282, which provides that th e CTA has jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari
assailinginterlocutoryordersissuedbytheRTCinlocaltaxcasesfiledbeforeit.
Theprevailingdoctrineisthattheauthoritytoissuewritsofcertiorariinvolvestheexerciseoforiginaljurisdiction
whichmustbeexpresslyconferredbytheConstitutionorbylawandcannotbeimpliedfromthemereexistence
of appellate jurisdiction.20 Thus, in the cases of Pimentel v. COMELEC,21 Garcia v. De Jesus,22 Veloria v.
COMELEC,23 Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board v. Lubrica,24 and Garcia v. Sandiganbayan,25
this Court has ruled against the jurisdiction of courts or tribunals over petitions for certiorari on the ground that
thereisnolawwhichexpresslygivesthesetribunalssuchpower.26Itmustbeobserved,however,thatwiththe
exception of Garcia v. Sandiganbayan,27 these rulings pertain not to regular courts but to tribunals exercising
quasijudicialpowers.WithrespecttotheSandiganbayan,RepublicActNo.824928nowprovidesthatthespecial
criminal court has exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance of the writs of mandamus,
prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunctions, and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction.
Inthesamemanner,Section5(1),ArticleVIIIofthe1987ConstitutiongrantspowertotheSupremeCourt,inthe
exerciseofitsoriginaljurisdiction,toissuewritsofcertiorari,prohibitionandmandamus.WithrespecttotheCourt
ofAppeals,Section9(1)ofBatasPambansaBlg.129(BP129)givestheappellatecourt,alsointheexerciseof
itsoriginaljurisdiction,thepowertoissue,amongothers,awritofcertiorari,whetherornotinaidofitsappellate
jurisdiction. As to Regional Trial Courts, the power to issue a writ of certiorari, in the exercise of their original
jurisdiction,isprovidedunderSection21ofBP129.
Theforegoingnotwithstanding,whilethereisnoexpressgrantofsuchpower,withrespecttotheCTA,Section1,
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
courtsofjusticetosettleactualcontroversiesinvolvingrightswhicharelegallydemandableandenforceable,and
todeterminewhetherornottherehasbeenagraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdiction
onthepartofanybranchorinstrumentalityoftheGovernment.
On the strength of the above constitutional provisions, it can be fairly interpreted that the power of the CTA
includesthatofdeterminingwhetherornottherehasbeengraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolackorexcess
ofjurisdictiononthepartoftheRTCinissuinganinterlocutoryorderincasesfallingwithintheexclusiveappellate
jurisdictionofthetaxcourt.It,thus,followsthattheCTA,byconstitutionalmandate,isvestedwithjurisdictionto
issuewritsofcertiorariinthesecases.
Indeed,inorderforanyappellatecourttoeffectivelyexerciseitsappellatejurisdiction,itmusthavetheauthority
to issue, among others, a writ of certiorari. In transferring exclusive jurisdiction over appealed tax cases to the
CTA,itcanreasonablybeassumedthatthelawintendedtotransferalsosuchpowerasisdeemednecessary,if
not indispensable, in aid of such appellate jurisdiction. There is no perceivable reason why the transfer should
onlybeconsideredaspartial,nottotal.
Consistentwiththeabovepronouncement,thisCourthasheldasearlyasthecaseofJ.M.Tuason&Co.,Inc.v.
Jaramillo,etal.29that"ifacasemaybeappealedtoaparticularcourtorjudicialtribunalorbody,thensaidcourt
or judicial tribunal or body has jurisdiction to issue the extraordinary writ of certiorari, in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction."30ThisprinciplewasaffirmedinDeJesusv.CourtofAppeals,31wheretheCourtstatedthat"acourt
mayissueawritofcertiorariinaidofitsappellatejurisdictionifsaidcourthasjurisdictiontoreview,byappealor
writ of error, the final orders or decisions of the lower court."32 The rulings in J.M. Tuason and De Jesus were
reiteratedinthemorerecentcasesofGalang,Jr.v.Geronimo33andBulilisv.Nuez.34
Furthermore, Section 6, Rule 135 of the present Rules of Court provides that when by law, jurisdiction is
conferred on a court or judicial officer, all auxiliary writs, processes and other means necessary to carry it into
effectmaybeemployedbysuchcourtorofficer.
IfthisCourtweretosustainpetitioners'contentionthatjurisdictionovertheircertioraripetitionlieswiththeCA,this
Courtwouldbeconfirmingtheexercisebytwojudicialbodies,theCAandtheCTA,ofjurisdictionoverbasically
thesamesubjectmatterpreciselythesplitjurisdictionsituationwhichisanathematotheorderlyadministration
of justice.35 The Court cannot accept that such was the legislative motive, especially considering that the law
expresslyconfersontheCTA,thetribunalwiththespecializedcompetenceovertaxandtariffmatters,theroleof
judicialreviewoverlocaltaxcaseswithoutmentionofanyothercourtthatmayexercisesuchpower.Thus,the
CourtagreeswiththerulingoftheCAthatsinceappellatejurisdictionoverprivaterespondents'complaintfortax
refund is vested in the CTA, it follows that a petition for certiorari seeking nullification of an interlocutory order
issuedinthesaidcaseshould,likewise,befiledwiththesamecourt.Toruleotherwisewouldleadtoanabsurd
situationwhereonecourtdecidesanappealinthemaincasewhileanothercourtrulesonanincidentinthevery
samecase.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_175723_2014.html

5/8

12/13/2014

G.R.No.175723

Stateddifferently,itwouldbesomewhatincongruentwiththepronouncedjudicialabhorrencetosplitjurisdictionto
concludethattheintentionofthelawistodividetheauthorityoveralocaltaxcasefiledwiththeRTCbygivingto
theCAorthisCourtjurisdictiontoissueawritofcertiorariagainstinterlocutoryordersoftheRTCbutgivingtothe
CTAthejurisdictionovertheappealfromthedecisionofthetrialcourtinthesamecase.Itismoreinconsonance
withlogicandlegalsoundnesstoconcludethatthegrantofappellatejurisdictiontotheCTAovertaxcasesfiled
in and decided by the RTC carries with it the power to issue a writ of certiorari when necessary in aid of such
appellate jurisdiction. The supervisory power or jurisdiction of the CTA to issue a writ of certiorari in aid of its
appellatejurisdictionshouldcoexistwith,andbeacomplementto,itsappellatejurisdictiontoreview,byappeal,
thefinalordersanddecisionsoftheRTC,inordertohavecompletesupervisionovertheactsofthelatter.36
Agrantofappellatejurisdictionimpliesthatthereisincludedinitthepowernecessarytoexerciseiteffectively,to
make all orders that will preserve the subject of the action, and to give effect to the final determination of the
appeal.Itcarrieswithitthepowertoprotectthatjurisdictionandtomakethedecisionsofthecourtthereunder
effective.Thecourt,inaidofitsappellatejurisdiction,hasauthoritytocontrolallauxiliaryandincidentalmatters
necessary to the efficient and proper exercise of that jurisdiction. For this purpose, it may, when necessary,
prohibit or restrain the performance of any act which might interfere with the proper exercise of its rightful
jurisdictionincasespendingbeforeit.37
1 w p h i1

Lastly,itwouldnotbeamisstopointoutthatacourtwhichisendowedwithaparticularjurisdictionshouldhave
powerswhicharenecessarytoenableittoacteffectivelywithinsuchjurisdiction.Theseshouldberegardedas
powers which are inherent in its jurisdiction and the court must possess them in order to enforce its rules of
practiceandtosuppressanyabusesofitsprocessandtodefeatanyattemptedthwartingofsuchprocess.
Inthisregard,Section1ofRA9282statesthattheCTAshallbeofthesamelevelastheCAandshallpossessall
theinherentpowersofacourtofjustice.
Indeed, courts possess certain inherent powers which may be said to be implied from a general grant of
jurisdiction, in addition to those expressly conferred on them. These inherent powers are such powers as are
necessary for the ordinary and efficient exercise of jurisdiction or are essential to the existence, dignity and
functionsofthecourts,aswellastothedueadministrationofjusticeoraredirectlyappropriate,convenientand
suitable to the execution of their granted powers and include the power to maintain the court's jurisdiction and
renderiteffectiveinbehalfofthelitigants.38
Thus, this Court has held that "while a court may be expressly granted the incidental powers necessary to
effectuateitsjurisdiction,agrantofjurisdiction,intheabsenceofprohibitivelegislation,impliesthenecessaryand
usualincidentalpowersessentialtoeffectuateit,and,subjecttoexistinglawsandconstitutionalprovisions,every
regularly constituted court has power to do all things that are reasonably necessary for the administration of
justice within the scope of its jurisdiction and for the enforcement of its judgments and mandates."39 Hence,
demands,mattersorquestionsancillaryorincidentalto,orgrowingoutof,themainaction,andcomingwithinthe
aboveprinciples,maybetakencognizanceofbythecourtanddetermined,sincesuchjurisdictionisinaidofits
authorityovertheprincipalmatter,eventhoughthecourtmaythusbecalledontoconsideranddecidematters
which,asoriginalcausesofaction,wouldnotbewithinitscognizance.40
Based on the foregoing disquisitions, it can be reasonably concluded that the authority of the CTA to take
cognizance of petitions for certiorari questioning interlocutory orders issued by the RTC in a local tax case is
includedinthepowersgrantedbytheConstitutionaswellasinherentintheexerciseofitsappellatejurisdiction.
Finally,itwouldbeartopointoutthatthisCourtisnotabandoningtherulethat,insofarasquasijudicialtribunals
areconcerned,theauthoritytoissuewritsofcertiorarimuststillbeexpresslyconferredbytheConstitutionorby
law and cannot be implied from the mere existence of their appellate jurisdiction. This doctrine remains as it
appliesonlytoquasijudicialbodies.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDENIED.
SOORDERED.
DIOSDADOM.PERALTA
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice
ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_175723_2014.html

PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice
6/8

12/13/2014

G.R.No.175723

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice

ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice

LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice

Nopart
MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO*
AssociateJustice

ROBERTOA.ABAD
AssociateJustice

MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJustice

JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice

JOSECATRALMENDOZA
AssociateJustice

BIENVENIDOL.REYES
AssociateJustice

ESTELAM.PERLASBERNABE
AssociateJustice

MARVICMARIOVICTORF.LEONEN
AssociateJustice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision were
reachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt.
MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
*

Nopart.

PennedbyAssociateJusticeRebeccadeGuiaSalvador,withAssociateJusticesRubenT.Reyes(nowa
retiredmemberofthisCourt)andAuroraSantiagoLagman,concurringAnnexes"A"and"B,"rollo,pp.43
484951.
2

Rollo,p.44.(Italicsandemphasisintheoriginalcitationsomitted)

Records,vol.II,pp.476480.

Id.at481490.

Id.at513.

CArollo,pp.231.

Id.at321326.

Rollo,p.20.(Emphasisintheoriginal)

Records,vol.II,pp.761762.

10

Id.at762.(Emphasisintheoriginal)

11

Id.at822.

12

Id.at837.

13

Garciav.COMELEC,328Phil.288,292(1996).

14

CanelandSugarCorporationv.Alon,G.R.No.142896,September12,2007,533SCRA28,33.

15

Republic of the Philippines, represented by Abusama M. Alid, OfficerinCharge, Department of

AgricultureRegionalFieldUnitXII(DARFUXII)v.AbdulwahabA.Bayao,etal.,G.R.No.179492,June5,
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_175723_2014.html

7/8

12/13/2014

G.R.No.175723

2013.
16

Mendezv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.174937,June13,2012,672SCRA200,207.

17

Id.

18

Tagle v. Equitable PCI Bank, G.R. No. 172299, April 22, 2008, 552 SCRA 424, 444, citing Oaminal v.
Castillo,459Phil.542,556(2003)Republicv.CourtofAppeals,379Phil.92,98(2000)DelsanTransport
Lines,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,335Phil.1066,1075(1997)BancoFilipinoSavingsandMortgageBankv.
CourtofAppeals,389Phil.644,655(2000).
19

Emphasissupplied.

20

Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board v. Lubrica, 497 Phil. 313, 322 (2005) Veloria v.
COMELEC,G.R.No.94771,July29,1992,211SCRA907,915.
21

189Phil.581(1980).

22

G.R.Nos.88158and9710809,March4,1992,206SCRA779.

23

Supranote20.

24

Supranote20.

25

G..R.No.114135,October7,1994,237SCRA552.

26

Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board v. Lubrica, supra note 20 Veloria v. COMELEC,
supra note 20 Garcia v. Sandiganbayan, id. at 563564 Garcia v. De Jesus, supra note 22, at 787788
Pimentelv.COMELEC,supranote21,at587.
27

Supranote25.

28

An Act Further Defining the Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, Amending for the Purpose Presidential
DecreeNo.1606,AsAmended,ProvidingFundsTherefor,AndforOtherPurposes.
29

118Phil.1022(1963).

30

J.M.Tuason&Co.,Inc.v.Jaramillo,etal.,supra,at1026.

31

G.R.No.101630,August24,1992,212SCRA823.

32

DeJesusv.CourtofAppeals,supra,at827828.

33

G.R.No.192793,February22,2011,643SCRA631,635636.

34

G.R.No.195953,August9,2011,655SCRA241,246247.

35

SouthernCrossCementCorporationv.PhilippineCementManufacturersCorp.,478Phil.85,125(2004).

36

Breslinv.LuzonStevedoringCompany,84Phil.618,623(1949).

37

4AmJur2d,AppealandError,5,p.5362AmJur,AppealandError,9,850.

38

Santiagov.Vasquez,G.R.Nos.9928990,January27,1993,217SCRA633,648.

39

TreasurerAssessor v. University of the Philippines, 148 Phil. 526, 539 (1971) Amalgamated Laborers'
Association v. Court of Industrial Relations, 131 Phil. 374, 380 (1968) Philippine Airlines Employees'
Associationv.PhilippineAirlines,Inc.120Phil.383,390(1964).(Citationsomitted).
40

Id.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_175723_2014.html

8/8