ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

[1] Section 9, paragraph 1, BP 129

Section 9 – Jurisdiction – The Court of Appeals shall exercise:
(1) Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas
corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes whether or not in aid of its
appellate jurisdiction.
Does the language sound familiar to you? “Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition,
certiorari, habeas corpus, quo warranto.” Did you hear that before?
Under the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court the language is the same, eh. Now, we take the
same
provision for the second time. So, if I would like to file a petition for habeas corpus, where will I file it?
Q: If I file it with the Supreme Court, is it allowed?
A: Yes, because the Constitution says so.
Q: But suppose I will instead file it with the CA, is it also allowed?
A: Yes, under Section 9, paragraph 1.
So what is the conclusion? The SC and the CA exercises concurrent jurisdiction to entertain
petitions to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo
warranto.
Alright, so I will go to a specific SITUATION: I’m a clever lawyer, and I will file a petition for quo
warranto. In
order to be sure I will get what I want, I will prepare two identical petitions. Since concurrent man sila, I
will file
before the SC and the other one with the CA. Sigurista ba – kung madisgrasya sa isa, meron pang isa.
Q: Can I do that? Meaning, I will file one petition before the SC, I will file another petition, pareho-
pareho – I
will invoke the jurisdiction of the two courts at the same time. Now, suppose I will do that, what do you
think
will happen to me?
A: The consequence is found in Section 17 of the Interim Rules. That’s why, as I said, the Interim Rules
are
still intact.
Interim Rules, Sec. 17. Petitions for writs of certiorari, etc. - No petition for certiorari,
mandamus, prohibition, habeas corpus or quo warranto may be filed in the IAC if
another similar petition has been filed or is still pending in the SC. Nor may such
petition be filed in the SC if a similar petition has been filed or is still pending in the
14
IAC, unless it is to review the action taken by the IAC on the petition filed with it. A
violation of this rule shall constitute contempt of court and shall be a cause for the
summary dismissal of both petitions, without prejudice to the taking of appropriate
action against the counsel or party concerned .
So, eto, you believe you are a clever lawyer, so you will file two identical petitions. Do you know what
will
happen to you according to the provision? Once the CA learns that you filed an identical petition with
the SC,
the CA will dismiss the petition before it. And once the SC also learns that you also filed before the CA,
the SC
will also dismiss the one you filed before it. So you end up with nothing because both courts will
dismiss.
And not only that, both courts will declare you in contempt of court and if you are a lawyer, disciplinary
actions may be taken against you. That is what you will get if you think you are clever. It turns out that
you
placed yourself in a frying pan. In other words, this is what is called abhorrent, contemptible practice
of FORUM
SHOPPING. Have you heard that term before – forum shopping? ‘Yun bang sabay-sabay kang mag-file
ng
case. You will invoke the jurisdiction of two or more courts simultaneously. That is an act of contempt
of court
(Rule 7, Section 5).
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
[2] Section 9, paragraph 2, BP 129
(2) “Exclusive” jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of Regional
 Trial Courts;
Yes, you will notice again that this type of action belongs to the original jurisdiction of the CA. But
there is
something that you will notice. In paragraph 2, it says there – “exclusive jurisdiction.” In paragraph 1,
the word
“exclusive” is not present. As already explained earlier in paragraph 1, the jurisdiction of the CA is
concurrent
with the SC. In paragraph 2, the original jurisdiction of the CA is exclusive with the CA. You can only file
this
type of action before the CA such as an action for annulment of judgments of the RTC’s.
Q: Actions for annulment of judgments of RTC’s, an action to annul a judgment of the RTC. Now, is this
similar to an appeal? Is this the same as appealing the decision of the RTC to the CA?
A: No, because in appeal, you are invoking the appellate jurisdiction of the CA. Here in paragraph 2, it
is not
appellate jurisdiction. Original ito, eh. Meaning, you are filing an action before the CA for the first time.
And
the nature of the action is to annul a judgment of the RTC.
Well, you are familiar with the Civil Law about actions of annulment of contracts. So, if there is such a
case
of annulment of contract, there is also such a case as annulment of judgments of the RTC’s and you
come to
wonder:
Q: What would be the ground? What will be the ground to annul the judgment of the RTC and how do
you
distinguish it from an appeal?
A: The present 1997 Civil Procedure now contains a specific rule on this. Before 1997, the guidelines
on
annulment of judgment of the RTC’s are SC decisions. There is no specific rule, ba. But ‘yung
guidelines are
based on jurisprudence.
Right now, starting July 1, 1997, there is now a specific rule on annulment of judgments of RTC. And
that is
Rule 47. That is an entirely new rule. So that is enacted precisely to implement Section 9 Paragraph 2.
Of
course, we will discuss that rule very much later.