DE CASTRO v.
CARLOS  Respondent argues otherwise, and maintains that petitioner violated the doctrine of
G.R. No. 194944 / APR 16, 2013 / SERENO, C.J./CIV PRO-HEIRARCHY OF COURTS/AJLCARDEÑO
NATURE Petition for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto under Rule 66
PETITIONERS Emmanuel A. De Castro
RESPONDENTS Emerson S. Carlos
SUMMARY. De Castro (petitioner) was appointed as Assistant General Manager I at the
MMDA by Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. With the onset of the Aquino administration, Carlos
(respondent) was appointed as OIC of the AGMO and De Castro’s name was removed from
the MMDA payroll. De Castro demanded for his reinstatement thru a letter addressed to
Aquino. However, Aquino appointed Carlos as the new AGMO. De Castro then petitioned
to the SC. Carlos argues that De Castro violated the doctrine of hierarchy of court when he
resorted directly to the Court.
DOCTRINE. “The Supreme Court is a court of last resort and must so remain if it is to
satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it by the fundamental charter and
immemorial tradition.” A disregard of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts warrants, as a
rule, the outright dismissal of a petition. A direct invocation of the Supreme Court’s
jurisdiction is allowed only when there are special and important reasons that are clearly
and specifically set forth in a petition. Although Sec. 5(1) of Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution
explicitly provides that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over petitions for
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus, the jurisdiction of the
SC is not exclusive but is concurrent with that of the CA and RTC and does not give
petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum.
FACTS.
 Emmanuel A. De Castro (petitioner) was appointed as Assistant General Manager I
(AGMO I) at the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) on July 29, 2009
by then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
 With the onset of the Aquino administration, Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa issued
Office of the President (OP) Memorandum Circular No. 2 Series of 2010, amending OP
MC No. 1, Series of 2010, which directed all non-Career Executive Service Officials (non-
CESO) to continue to discharge their office until October 31, 2011 or until their
resignations have been accepted and/or their respective replacements appointed or
designated.
 On November 2, 2010, Emerson Carlos (respondent) was appointed as OIC of the AGMO,
citing OP Memorandum Circular No. 2 Series of 2010.
 Since then, petitioner’s name was removed from the MMDA payroll and he no longer
received his salary effective November 2010.
 Seeking reinstatement, and declining an offer to become Director IV of the MMDA Public
Health and Safety Services, petitioner made a formal demand for his reinstatement thru
a letter addressed to the Office of the President.
 However, the President appointed respondent as the new AGMO of the MMDA effective
January 4, 2011.
 Petitioner then filed this present petition for issuance of writ of quo warranto to the SC,
arguing that Sec. 2(3) of Art. IX(B) of the 1987 Constitution guarantees the security of
tenure of employees in the civil service.
hierarchy of court when he resorted directly to the Court.
ISSUES & RATIO.
1. WON petitioner De Castro is entitled to the position of AGMO. - NO
For the procedural issue, petitioner submits that a direct recourse to the SC is warranted by
the urgent demands of public interest, particularly the veritable need for stability in the civil
service and the protection of the rights of civil servants, and considering that no other than
the President of the Philippines is the appointing authority.
In this case, the petitioner’s excuses are not special and important circumstances that would
allow a direct recourse to the SC.
A direct invocation of the SC’s jurisdiction is allowed only when there are special and
important reasons that are clearly and specifically set forth in a petition. The rationale behind
this policy arises from the necessity of preventing (1) inordinate demands upon the time and
attention of the SC, which is better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction;
and (2) further overcrowding of the SC’s docket.
Although Sec. 5(1) of Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides that the SC has
original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and
habeas corpus, the jurisdiction of the SC is not exclusive but is concurrent with that of the CA
and RTC and does not give petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum. The
hierarchy of courts must be strictly observed.
Settled is the rule that “the Supreme Court is a court of last resort and must so remain if it is
to satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it by the fundamental charter and
immemorial tradition.” A disregard of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts warrants, as a rule,
the outright dismissal of a petition.
DECISION.
Petition Denied.
NOTES [Substantive Aspect].
Even assuming that petitioner’s direct resort to the SC is permissible, the Petition must still
be dismissed for lack of merit.
We consider the following factors on why AGMO is covered by CES: First, an AGMO is a career
position that enjoys security of tenure by virtue of the MMDA Charter. Second, the position of
AGMO is above the division chief level, which is equivalent to the rank of assistant secretary
with Salary Grade 29. Third, the MMDA Charter states that the AGMO requires the
performance of executive and managerial functions.
In sum, the petitioner lacked of cause of action because he lacked CES eligibility in a CES
position.