UP Law F2021 [022] Mendoza v.

Villas
Civil Procedure: Classes of Jurisdiction Rule 45, Rule 65, Art. VIII, 2011 Velasco
(Exclusive v. Concurrent) sec. 5 1987 Const.

SUMMARY

Petitioner Mendoza garnered the highest vote for Punong Brangay. However, due to an election contest, the MTC
disqualified him and appointed Herato (who won as Kagawad) instead. Pending the appeal of the MTC decision to the
COMELEC, Herato took his oath as Punong Barangay and Mayor Villas directed the Municipal Administrator to write a
letter to the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) to not honor any transaction entered into by Mendoza in behalf of the
Barangay. With this, Mendoza filed a Petition for Mandamus with Damages and Prayer for the Writ of Preliminary
Mandatory Injunction in the RTC of Oriental Mindoro against LBP and Villas, directing LBP to release funds to him. The
RTC dismissed his petition prompting Mendoza to appeal directly to the SC without specifying under which rule he is
filing his appeal. The Court is left with the determination of whether it should be filed under Rule 65 or Rule 45.

The Court treated the petition as one filed under Rule 45 (Petition for Review on Certiorari) raising only questions of
law. It held that if it considered the appeal as one under Rule 65 (Petition for Certiorari), then it would have to dismiss
it outright for being filed prematurely and for violating the principle of hierarchy of courts. The court held that although
the SC, CA and RTC have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,
habeas corpus and injunction, such concurrence does not give the petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of court
forum. Procedure dictates that Petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs (such as Mandamus) against first level
courts should be filed with the RTC, and those against the RTC, with the CA. A direct invocation of the Supreme Court's
original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor,
clearly and specifically set out in the petition. In this case, there are no special and important reasons that petitioners
cite to justify their direct recourse to this Court under Rule 65. The Petition, however, should still be denied as the case
is already moot after the conduct of the 2010 Barangay elections.

FACTS

 In the 2007 Elections, Petitioner Constancio Mendoza (Mendoza) obtained the highest vote for Punong
Barangay of Balatasan, Bulalacao Oriental Mindoro. Meanwhile, Liwanag Herato (Herato) garnered the highest
votes for Barangay Kagawad. A losing candidate for Punong Barangay, Thomas Pajanel, filed a petition for quo
waranto with the MTC of Mansalay-Bulalacao. MTC then rendered a Decision disqualifying Mendoza and
declaring Herato as the new Punong Barangay.
 While Mendoza appealed the MTC Decision to the COMELEC, Respondent Mayor Enrilo Villas (Villas)
administered the Oath of Office to Herato and gave him the power to sign on official documents.
 Mendoza sought the advice of the DILG and in an April 11, 2008 letter, DILG Undersecretary Panadero said that
Mendoza should occupy pending the appeal of the MTC Decision. However, Bulalacao Municipal Administrator
Aceron, by the authority of Mayor Villas, wrote a letter to the Manager of Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP)
Pinamalayan Branch, Marlon De Castro, saying that all transactions entered into by Mendoza in behalf of the
Barangay should be dishonored.
 In response, de Castro issued Villas and Mendoza a letter dated April 24, 2008, advising both parties that the
LBP shall not honor any transaction with regard the accounts of Barangay Balatasan.
 Petitioners then filed a Petition for Mandamus with Damages and Prayer for the Writ of Preliminary Mandatory
Injunction in the RTC of Oriental Mindoro against LBP and Villas, praying that the LBP release the funds for the
Barangay to render basic public services.
 Villas and Herato filed an Answer saying that 1) Mandamus was defective as it is directed against two different
entities requiring them to perform two different acts; and 2) that Mendoza does not have any clear right to
invoke Mandamus. LBP also filed an Answer saying their action was a mere act of prudence given the
controversy. Thereafter, Villas and Herato filed a Motion to Dismiss attaching thereto a 2008 COMELEC
Resolution which disqualified Mendoza for the position of Punong Barangay as he had already occupied the
position for three (3) consecutive terms.
 In Respone, Mendoza presented a COMELEC certification that the matter raised in the Motion to Dismiss is still
pending with the COMELEC. Mendoza sought the opinion of DILG again, and DILG reiterated that Mendoza
should occupy the position pending the finality of the MTC Decision.
 On February 2, 2009, RTC issued the assailed Order dismissing Mendoza’s Petition on the strength of the 2008
COMELEC certification disqualifying Mendoza. Petitioners then appealed the RTC Order directly to the Supreme
Court but failed to cite under which rule they are filing the appeal.
 RATIO

Should the Petition be considered filed under Rule 65 or under Rule 45?
The court exercised liberality and treated the petition as one filed under Rule 45. The Court held that if they
considered the petition filed under Rule 65 as a Petition for Certiorari then they would have to dismiss it outright for
having been prematurely filed and for violating the principle of hierarchy of courts.

The court held that although the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts have
concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus
and injunction, such concurrence does not give the petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum.
This hierarchy of courts is determinative of the venue of appeals, and also serves as a general determinant of the
appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs.

Petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs (such as Mandamus) against first level courts should be filed with
the Regional Trial Court, and those against the RTC, with the Court of Appeals. A direct invocation of the Supreme
Court's original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and
important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. In this case, there are no special and
important reasons that petitioners cite to justify their direct recourse to this Court under Rule 65.

The Court then treated the Petition as one filed under Rule 45 for a Petition for Review on Certiorari which raises
only questions of law pursuant to Article VII, Section 5 of the Constitution.

Usually, MTC decisions are appealed to the RTC exercising territorial jurisdiction over the MTC. Meanwhile, RTC
Decisions are appealed to the CA through an ordinary appeal (if the case was originally decided by the RTC) or under
Rule 42 (If the case was decided under RTC’s appellate jurisdiction). However, there is an exception when Orders of
the RTC may be directly appealed to the SC but only under questions of law. The Court treated this case as such.

Nevertheless, even providing that the petition was not filed prematurely, it must still be dismissed for having become
moot and academic as the 2010 Barangay elections had already transpired. Mendoza no longer has any legal standing
to further pursue the case, rendering the instant petition moot and academic.

FALLO
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. SO ORDERED.