726 Phil.

EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 175723, February 04, 2014 ]
THE CITY OF MANILA, REPRESENTED BY MAYOR JOSE L. ATIENZA, JR., AND MS.
LIBERTY M. TOLEDO, IN HER CAPACITY AS THE CITY TREASURER OF MANILA,
PETITIONERS, VS. HON. CARIDAD H. GRECIA-CUERDO, 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.:

Before the Court is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeking to reverse and set
aside the Resolutions[1] dated April 6, 2006 and November 29, 2006 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No.
87948.

The antecedents of the case, as summarized by the CA, are as follows:

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., Star Appliances Center, Supervalue, Inc., Ace Hardware Philippines, Inc., Watsons
Personal Care Stores Phils., Inc., Jollimart Philippines Corp., Surplus Marketing Corp. and Signature Lines.
In addition to the taxes purportedly due from private respondents pursuant to Section 14, 15, 16, 17 of the
Revised Revenue Code of Manila (RRCM), said assessment covered the local business taxes petitioners
were authorized to collect under 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 P
19,316,458.77 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 Erroneously-Collected Local Business Tax,
Prohibition with Prayer to Issue TRO and Writ of Preliminary Injunction” which was docketed as Civil Case
No. 04-0019-CFM 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, Sections 14, 15, 16, 17,
18, 19 and 20 of the RRCM were violative of the limitations and guidelines under Section 143 (h) of
Republic Act. No. 7160 [Local Government Code] on double taxation. They further averred that petitioner
city's Ordinance No. 8011 which amended pertinent portions of the RRCM had already been declared to be
illegal and unconstitutional by the Department of Justice.[2]

In its Order[3] dated July 9, 2004, the RTC granted private respondents' application for a writ of preliminary injunction.

Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration[4] but the RTC denied it in its Order[5] dated October 15, 2004.

Petitioners then filed a special civil action for certiorari with the CA assailing the July 9, 2004 and October 15, 2004
Orders of the RTC.[6]

In its Resolution promulgated on April 6, 2006, the CA dismissed petitioners' petition for certiorari holding that it has
no jurisdiction over the said petition. The CA ruled that since appellate jurisdiction over private respondents' complaint
for tax refund, which was filed with the RTC, is vested in the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), pursuant to its expanded
jurisdiction under Republic Act No. 9282 (RA 9282), it follows that a petition for certiorari seeking nullification of an
interlocutory order issued in the said case should, likewise, be filed with the CTA.

Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration,[7] but the CA denied it in its Resolution dated November 29, 2006.

Hence, the present petition raising the following issues:

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56562 11/27/24, 9 31 AM
Page 1 of 8
:
 I- Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals gravely erred in dismissing the case for lack of
jurisdiction.

II- Whether or not the Honorable Regional Trial Court gravely abuse[d] its discretion amounting to
lack or 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, against private respondents.

III- Whether or not the Honorable Regional Trial Court gravely abuse[d] its discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the Writ of Injunction despite failure of private respondents to
make a written claim for tax credit or refund with the City Treasurer of Manila.

IV- Whether or not the Honorable Regional Trial Court gravely abuse[d] its discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction considering that under Section 21 of the Manila Revenue Code, as
amended, they are mere collecting agents of the City Government.

V- Whether or not the Honorable Regional Trial Court gravely abuse[d] its discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the Writ of Injunction because petitioner City of Manila and its
constituents would result to greater damage and prejudice thereof. (sic)[8]

Without first resolving the above issues, this Court finds that the instant petition should be denied for being moot and
academic.

U pon perusal of the original records of the instant case, this Court discovered that a Decision[9] in the main case had
already been rendered by the RTC on August 13, 2007, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Court hereby renders JUDGMENT in favor of the plaintiff and
against the defendant to grant a tax refund or credit for taxes paid pursuant to Section 21 of the Revenue
Code of the City of Manila as amended for the year 2002 in the following amounts:

To plaintiff SM Mart, Inc. - P 11,462,525.02

To plaintiff SM Prime Holdings, Inc. - 3,118,104.63
To plaintiff Star Appliances Center - 2,152,316.54
To plaintiff Supervalue, Inc. - 1,362,750.34
To plaintiff Ace Hardware Phils., Inc. - 419,689.04
To plaintiff Watsons Personal Care Health
- 231,453.62
Stores Phils., Inc.
To plaintiff Jollimart Phils., Corp. - 140,908.54
To plaintiff Surplus Marketing Corp. - 220,204.70
To plaintiff Signature Mktg. Corp. - 94,906.34

P
TOTAL:
19,316,458.77

Defendants are further enjoined from collecting taxes under Section 21, Revenue Code of Manila from
herein plaintiff.

SO ORDERED.[10]

The parties did not inform the Court but based on the records, the above Decision had already become final and
executory per the Certificate of Finality[11] issued by the same trial court on October 20, 2008. In fact, a Writ of
Execution[12] was issued by the RTC on November 25, 2009.

In view of the foregoing, it clearly appears that the issues raised in the present petition, which merely involve the
incident on the preliminary injunction issued by the RTC, have already become moot and academic considering that the
trial court, in its decision on the merits in the main case, has already ruled in favor of respondents and that the same
decision is now final and executory. Well entrenched is the rule that where the issues have become moot and academic,
there is no justiciable controversy, thereby rendering the resolution of the same of no practical use or value.[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 question
otherwise moot and academic if it is capable of repetition, yet evading review.[14]

However, before proceeding, to resolve the question on jurisdiction, the Court deems it proper to likewise address a

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56562 11/27/24, 9 31 AM
Page 2 of 8
:
 procedural error which petitioners committed.

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.[15]

Petitioners should be reminded of the equally-settled rule that 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.[16] As such,
it cannot be a substitute for a lost appeal.[17]

Nonetheless, in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of substantial justice,
this Court has, before, treated a petition for certiorari as a petition for review on certiorari, particularly (1) if 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.[18]
Considering that the present petition was filed within the 15-day reglementary period for filing a petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45, that an error of judgment is averred, and because of the significance of the issue on
jurisdiction, the Court deems it proper and justified to relax the rules and, thus, treat the instant petition for certiorari as
a petition for review on certiorari.

Having disposed of the procedural aspect, we now turn to the central issue in this case. The basic question posed before
this Court is whether or not the CTA has jurisdiction over a special civil action for certiorari assailing an interlocutory
order issued by the RTC in a local tax case.

This Court rules in the affirmative.

On June 16, 1954, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 1125 (RA 1125) creating the CTA and giving to the said court
jurisdiction over the following:

(1) Decisions of the Collector of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of
internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed in relation thereto, or other matters arising
under the National Internal Revenue Code or other law or part of law administered by the Bureau of Internal
Revenue;

(2) 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 imposed
in relation thereto; or other matters arising under the Customs Law or other law or part of law administered
by the Bureau of Customs; and

(3) Decisions of provincial or City Boards of Assessment Appeals in cases involving the assessment and
taxation of real property or other matters arising under the Assessment Law, including rules and regulations
relative thereto.

On March 30, 2004, the Legislature passed into law Republic Act No. 9282 (RA 9282) amending RA 1125 by expanding
the jurisdiction of the CTA, enlarging its membership and elevating its rank to the level of a collegiate court with special
jurisdiction. Pertinent portions of the amendatory act provides thus:

Sec. 7. Jurisdiction. - The CTA shall exercise:

a. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided:

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 administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue;

2. Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed

assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in
relations thereto, or other 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 period of action, in which case the inaction

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56562 11/27/24, 9 31 AM
Page 3 of 8
:
 shall be deemed a denial;

3. 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;

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 Law or other laws administered by the Bureau of Customs;

5. Decisions of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals in the exercise of its

appellate jurisdiction over cases involving the assessment and taxation of real property
originally decided by the provincial or city board of assessment appeals;

6. Decisions of the Secretary of Finance on customs cases elevated to him

automatically for review from decisions of the Commissioner of Customs which are
adverse to the Government under Section 2315 of the Tariff and Customs Code;

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, commodity or article, involving dumping and countervailing
duties under Section 301 and 302, respectively, of the Tariff and Customs Code, and
safeguard measures under Republic Act No. 8800, where either party may appeal the
decision to impose or not to impose said duties.

b. Jurisdiction over cases involving criminal offenses as herein provided:

1. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all criminal offenses arising from violations of
the National 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 felonies mentioned in this paragraph where the principal
amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is less than One
million pesos ( P 1,000,000.00) or where there is no specified amount claimed shall be
tried by the regular Courts and the jurisdiction of the CTA shall be appellate. Any
provision of law or the Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding, the criminal
action and the corresponding civil action for the recovery of civil liability for taxes
and penalties shall at all times be simultaneously instituted with, and jointly
determined in the same proceeding by the CTA, the filing of the criminal action being
deemed to necessarily carry with it the filing of the civil action, and no right to reserve
the filing of such civil action separately from the criminal action will be recognized.

2. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in criminal offenses:

a. Over appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts
in tax cases originally decided by them, in their respected territorial jurisdiction.

b. Over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional
Trial Courts in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over tax cases originally
decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts in their respective jurisdiction.

c. Jurisdiction over tax collection cases as herein provided:

1. Exclusive original jurisdiction in tax collection cases involving final and executory
assessments for taxes, fees, charges and penalties: Provides, however, that collection
cases where the principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties,
claimed is less than One million pesos ( P 1,000,000.00) shall be tried by the proper
Municipal Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court and Regional Trial Court.

2. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in tax collection cases:

a. Over appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional

Trial Courts in tax collection cases originally decided by them, in their
respective territorial jurisdiction.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56562 11/27/24, 9 31 AM
Page 4 of 8
:
 b. Over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders of the
Regional Trial Courts in the Exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over tax
collection cases originally decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, in their
respective jurisdiction.[19]

A perusal of the above provisions would show that, while it is clearly stated that the CTA has exclusive appellate
jurisdiction over decisions, orders or resolutions of the RTCs 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 RA 1125 as well as the
amendatory RA 9282, which provides that the CTA has 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.[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 there is
no law which expressly gives these tribunals such power.[26] It must be observed, however, that with the exception of
Garcia v. Sandiganbayan,[27] these rulings pertain not to regular courts but to tribunals exercising quasi-judicial powers.
With respect to the Sandiganbayan, Republic Act No. 8249[28] now provides that the special 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.

In the same manner, Section 5 (1), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution grants power to the Supreme Court, in the
exercise of its original jurisdiction, to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. With respect to the Court of
Appeals, Section 9 (1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (BP 129) gives the appellate court, also in the exercise of its original
jurisdiction, the power to issue, among others, a writ of certiorari,whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. As to
Regional Trial Courts, the power to issue a writ of certiorari, in the exercise of their original jurisdiction, is provided
under Section 21 of BP 129.

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.

Indeed, in order for any appellate court to effectively exercise its appellate jurisdiction, it must have the authority to
issue, among others, a writ of certiorari. In transferring exclusive jurisdiction over appealed tax cases to the CTA, it can
reasonably be assumed that the law intended to transfer also such power as is deemed necessary, if not indispensable, in
aid of such appellate jurisdiction. There is no perceivable reason why the transfer should only be considered as partial,
not total.

Consistent with the above pronouncement, this Court has held as early as the case of J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v.
Jaramillo, et al.[29] that “if a case may be appealed to a particular court or judicial tribunal or body, then said court or
judicial tribunal or body has jurisdiction to issue the extraordinary writ of certiorari, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.”
[30] This principle was affirmed in De Jesus v. Court of Appeals,[31] where the Court stated that “a court may issue a writ
of certiorari in aid of its appellate jurisdiction if said court has jurisdiction to review, by appeal or writ of error, the final
orders or decisions of the lower court.”[32] The rulings in J.M. Tuason and De Jesus were reiterated in the more recent
cases of Galang, Jr. v. Geronimo[33] and Bulilis v. 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 effect may be employed
by such court or officer.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56562 11/27/24, 9 31 AM
Page 5 of 8
:
 If this Court were to sustain petitioners' contention that jurisdiction over their certiorari petition lies with the CA, this
Court would be confirming the exercise by two judicial bodies, the CA and the CTA, of jurisdiction over basically the
same subject matter – precisely the split-jurisdiction situation which is anathema to the orderly administration of justice.
[35] The Court cannot accept that such was the legislative motive, especially considering that the law expressly confers
on the CTA, the tribunal with the specialized competence over tax and tariff matters, the role of judicial review over
local tax cases without mention of any other court that may exercise such power. Thus, the Court agrees with the ruling
of the CA that since appellate jurisdiction over private respondents' complaint for tax refund is vested in the CTA, it
follows that a petition for certiorari seeking nullification of an interlocutory order issued in the said case should,
likewise, be filed with the same court. To rule otherwise would lead to an absurd situation where one court decides an
appeal in the main case while another court rules on an incident in the very same case.

Stated differently, it would be somewhat incongruent with the pronounced judicial abhorrence to split jurisdiction to
conclude that the intention of the law is to divide the authority over a local tax case filed with the RTC by giving to the
CA or this Court jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari against interlocutory orders of the RTC but giving to the CTA
the jurisdiction over the appeal from the decision of the trial court in the same case. It is more in consonance with logic
and legal soundness to conclude that the grant of appellate jurisdiction to the CTA over tax cases filed 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 appellate jurisdiction should co-
exist with, and be a complement to, its appellate jurisdiction to review, by appeal, the final orders and decisions of the
RTC, in order to have complete supervision over the acts of the latter.[36]

A grant of appellate jurisdiction implies that there is included in it the power necessary to exercise it effectively, to make
all orders that will preserve the subject of the action, and to give effect to the final determination of the appeal. It carries
with it the power to protect that jurisdiction and to make the decisions of the court thereunder effective. The court, in aid
of its appellate jurisdiction, has authority to control all auxiliary and incidental matters 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 jurisdiction in cases pending before it.[37]

Lastly, it would not be amiss to point out that a court which is endowed with a particular jurisdiction should have powers
which are necessary to enable it to act effectively within such jurisdiction. These should be regarded as powers which
are inherent in its jurisdiction and the court must possess them in order to enforce its rules of practice and to suppress
any abuses of its process and to defeat any attempted thwarting of such process.

In this regard, Section 1 of RA 9282 states that the CTA shall be of the same level as the CA and shall possess all the
inherent powers of a court of justice.

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 functions of the courts, as well as to
the due administration of justice; or are directly appropriate, convenient and suitable to the execution of their granted
powers; and include the power to maintain the court's jurisdiction and render it effective in behalf of the litigants.[38]

Thus, this Court has held that “while a court may be expressly granted the incidental powers necessary to effectuate its
jurisdiction, a grant of jurisdiction, in the absence of prohibitive legislation, implies the necessary and usual incidental
powers essential to effectuate it, and, subject to existing laws and constitutional provisions, 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, matters or questions ancillary
or incidental to, or growing out of, the main action, and coming within the above principles, may be taken cognizance of
by the court and determined, since such jurisdiction is in aid of its authority over the principal matter, even though the
court may thus be called on to consider and decide matters which, as original causes of action, would not be within its
cognizance.[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 included in the powers
granted by the Constitution as well as inherent in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

Finally, it would bear to point out that this Court is not abandoning the rule that, insofar as quasi-judicial tribunals are
concerned, the authority to issue writs of certiorari must still be expressly conferred by the Constitution or by law and
cannot be implied from the mere existence of their appellate jurisdiction. This doctrine remains as it applies only to
quasi-judicial bodies.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56562 11/27/24, 9 31 AM
Page 6 of 8
:
 Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Bersamin, Abad, Villarama, Jr., Perez, Mendoza, Reyes,
Perlas-Bernabe, and Leonen, JJ., concur.

Del Castillo, J., no part.

[1] Penned by Associate Justice Rebecca de Guia-Salvador, with Associate Justices Ruben T. Reyes (now a retired
member of this Court) and Aurora Santiago-Lagman, concurring; Annexes “A” and “B,” rollo, pp. 43-48; 49-51.

[2] Rollo, p. 44. (Italics and emphasis in the original; citations omitted)

[3] Records, vol. II, pp. 476-480.

[4] Id. at 481-490.

[5] Id. at 513.

[6] CA rollo, pp. 2-31.

[7] Id. at 321-326.

[8] Rollo, p. 20. (Emphasis in the original)

[9] Records, vol. II, pp. 761-762.

[10] Id. at 762. (Emphasis in the original)

[11] Id. at 822.

[12] Id. at 837.

[13] Garcia v. COMELEC, 328 Phil. 288, 292 (1996).

[14] Caneland Sugar Corporation v. Alon, G.R. No. 142896, September 12, 2007, 533 SCRA 28, 33.

[15] Republic of the Philippines, represented by Abusama M. Alid, Officer-in-Charge, Department of Agriculture-
Regional Field Unit XII (DA-RFU-XII) v. Abdulwahab A. Bayao, et al., G.R. No. 179492, June 5, 2013.

[16] Mendez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 174937, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 200, 207.

[17] Id.

[18] Tagle v. Equitable PCI Bank, G.R. No. 172299, April 22, 2008, 552 SCRA 424, 444, citing Oaminal v. Castillo, 459
Phil. 542, 556 (2003); Republic v. Court of Appeals, 379 Phil. 92, 98 (2000); Delsan Transport Lines, Inc. v. Court of
Appeals, 335 Phil. 1066, 1075 (1997); Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank v. Court of Appeals, 389 Phil. 644,
655 (2000).

[19] Emphasis supplied.

[20] Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board v. Lubrica, 497 Phil. 313, 322 (2005); Veloria v. COMELEC,
G.R. No. 94771, July 29, 1992, 211 SCRA 907, 915.

[21] 189 Phil. 581 (1980).

[22] G.R. Nos. 88158 and 97108-09, March 4, 1992, 206 SCRA 779.

[23] Supra note 20.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56562 11/27/24, 9 31 AM
Page 7 of 8
:
 [24] Supra note 20.

[25] G.R. No. 114135, October 7, 1994, 237 SCRA 552.

[26] Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board v. Lubrica, supra note 20; Veloria v. COMELEC, supra note
20; Garcia v. Sandiganbayan, id. at 563-564; Garcia v. De Jesus, supra note 22, at 787-788; Pimentel v. COMELEC,
supra note 21, at 587.

[27] Supra note 25.

[28] An Act Further Defining the Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, Amending for the Purpose Presidential Decree No.
1606, As Amended, Providing Funds Therefor, And for Other Purposes.

[29] 118 Phil. 1022 (1963).

[30] J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Jaramillo, et al., supra, at 1026.

[31] G.R. No. 101630, August 24, 1992, 212 SCRA 823.

[32] De Jesus v. Court of Appeals, supra, at 827-828.

[33] G.R. No. 192793, February 22, 2011, 643 SCRA 631, 635-636.

[34] G.R. No. 195953, August 9, 2011, 655 SCRA 241, 246-247.

[35] Southern Cross Cement Corporation v. Philippine Cement Manufacturers Corp., 478 Phil. 85, 125 (2004).

[36] Breslin v. Luzon Stevedoring Company, 84 Phil. 618, 623 (1949).

[37] 4 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error, §5, p. 536; 2 Am Jur, Appeal and Error, §9, 850.

[38] Santiago v. Vasquez, G.R. Nos. 99289-90, January 27, 1993, 217 SCRA 633, 648.

[39] Treasurer-Assessor 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' Association v. Philippine
Airlines, Inc., 120 Phil. 383, 390 (1964). (Citations omitted).

[40] Id.

Source: Supreme Court E-Library

This page was dynamically generated
by the E-Library Content Management System (E-LibCMS)

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56562 11/27/24, 9 31 AM
Page 8 of 8
: