Victa-Que vs.

Que,
GR No. 215679, Feb. 25, 2015

FACTS:

Petitioner in this case filed a petition for relief from judgement on the ground
of an existence of extrinsic fraud in the Court of Appeals which the latter denied.

Herein petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the First
Division of the Supreme Court which issued a resolution to wit:

“The petitioner’s motion for an extension of thirty (30) days within which to file a petition
for review on certiorari is GRANTED, counted from the expiration of the reglementary
period.”

Aggrieved, Corazon Macapagal vs. People of the Philippines G.R.No.193217

February26,2014
© Roz Camacho
FACTS:
On November 25, 2008, the RTC rendered a decision finding Petitioner Corazon
Macapagal guilty of the crime of Estafa for misappropriating for her own benefit 800,000
Php, the value of unreturned and unsold jewelry. Petitioner received the decision on
January 13, 2009 then timely moved for reconsideration but was denied in an Order dated
May 20, 2009 which the petitioner allegedly received on July 31, 2009. She supposedly
filed a notice of Appeal on August 3, 2009 but the same was denied on June 29, 2010 for
having been filed out of time. Thus, this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court.
ISSUES:
(1) WON the RTC of Manila gravely erred in denying the Notice of Appeal filed by
petitioner-appellant
(2) WON the RTC erred in denying the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner-
appellant
HELD:
Petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
(1) NO. Petitioner availed of the wrong mode of assailing the trial court’s denial of her
notice of appeal. Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure lay down the rules
on where, how and when appeal is taken. The disallowance of the notice of appeal
disallows the appeal itself. A petition for review under Rule 45 is a mode of appeal of a
lower court’s decision or final order direct to the Supreme Court. However the questioned
order denying the notice of appeal is not a decision or final order from which an appeal
may be taken. The petitioner should have availed of a special civil action under Rule 65.
Thus, in availing the wrong mode of appeal under Rule 45 instead of Rule 65, the petition
merits an outward dismissal.
Even if the petition was treated as one for Certiorari under Rule 65, it is still dismissible
for violation of the hierarchy of courts. Although the Supreme Court has concurrent
jurisdiction with the RTC and CA to issue writs of certiorari, the petitioner has no absolute
freedom of choice of court to which the application is directed. Direct Resort to the
Supreme Court is allowed only if there are special, important and compelling reasons
clearly and specifically spelled out in the petition, which are not present in this case.
respondent moved for a reconsideration from the resolution by the Court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner was able to justify the existence of extrinsic fraud
as ground for the warrant of the petition for relief from judgment.

RULING:

NO.

As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioner failed to establish the existence of extrinsic
fraud to warrant the grant of the Petition for Relief from Judgment, considering that she
was validly served with summons thru publication as she was no longer a resident of her
given address and that her present address was unknown. Verily, extrinsic fraud that will
justify a petition for relief from judgment is that fraud which prevailing party caused to
prevent the losing party from being heard on his action or defense. However, such fraud
was not proven by petitioner in this case. Besides, petitioner's certiorari petition before
the CA suffered from several procedural defects, warranting its dismissal altogether.

After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the instant
petition and AFFIRM the December 1, 2014 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. SP No. 137646 for failure of Elizabeth Lozano Victa-Que (petitioner) to show that
the CA erred in upholding the dismissal of her Petition for Relief from Judgment.

The City of Manila vs. Hon. Grecia-Cuerdo

GR No. 175723, Feb. 4, 2014
FACTS:

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 et al.

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. Privates respondents on January 24, 2004 filed
a recovery complaint and writ of prelimenary injunction against the petitioner averring
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. The court
granted the same.

Aggrieved petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the
RTC. This prompted the latter to file a special civil action for certiorari with the CA
assailing the July 9, 2004 and October 15, 2004 orders of the RTC.

CA dismissed petitioners’ petition for certiorari holding that it has no jurisdiction

over the said petition. The CA ruled 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.

ISSUE:
Whether the CTA can issue writ of certiorari in its appellate jurisdiction.

RULING:
 YES. 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.

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.

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.

Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila vs. Ramos, GR No. 179181, Nov.

18, 2013; Bases Conversion DevelopmentAuthority vs. Reyes, GR No.
194247, June 19, 2013 (question of fact and of law)

FACTS:
 Corazon Macapagal vs. People of the Philippines G.R.No.193217
February26,2014 (What is the consequence of availing the wrong mode of
appeal)

FACTS:

On November 25, 2008, the RTC rendered a decision finding Petitioner Corazon
Macapagal guilty of the crime of Estafa for misappropriating for her own benefit 800,000
Php, the value of unreturned and unsold jewelry. Petitioner received the decision on
January 13, 2009 then timely moved for reconsideration but was denied in an Order dated
May 20, 2009 which the petitioner allegedly received on July 31, 2009. She supposedly
filed a notice of Appeal on August 3, 2009 but the same was denied on June 29, 2010 for
having been filed out of time. Thus, this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court.

ISSUE:

WON the RTC of Manila gravely erred in denying the Notice of Appeal filed by
petitioner-appellant

RULING:

Petition is DENIED for lack of merit.

NO. Petitioner availed of the wrong mode of assailing the trial court’s denial of her
notice of appeal. Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure lay down the rules
on where, how and when appeal is taken. The disallowance of the notice of appeal
disallows the appeal itself. A petition for review under Rule 45 is a mode of appeal of a
lower court’s decision or final order direct to the Supreme Court. However the questioned
order denying the notice of appeal is not a decision or final order from which an appeal
may be taken. The petitioner should have availed of a special civil action under Rule 65.
Thus, in availing the wrong mode of appeal under Rule 45 instead of Rule 65, the petition
merits an outward dismissal.

Even if the petition was treated as one for Certiorari under Rule 65, it is still
dismissible for violation of the hierarchy of courts. Although the Supreme Court has
concurrent jurisdiction with the RTC and CA to issue writs of certiorari, the petitioner has
no absolute freedom of choice of court to which the application is directed. Direct Resort
to the Supreme Court is allowed only if there are special, important and compelling
reasons clearly and specifically spelled out in the petition, which are not present in this
case.