The phrase “in aid of its appellate jurisdiction” appears in some laws or rules on jurisdiction. For instance, P.D. No. 1606 provides that the Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance of the writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, and habeas corpus, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.1 Likewise, Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court states that in election cases involving an act or omission of the MTC or RTC, the petition for certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus shall be filed exclusively with the COMELEC in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
When is a petition filed with a court “in aid of its appellate jurisdiction”? If the petition for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, or habeas corpus relates to an act or omission of a respondent in a case which is appealable to a court, then that court has jurisdiction over the petition “in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.”
To illustrate: X filed an election protest case against Y before the RTC. The RTC issued an order finding the service of summons against Y to be valid and declaring Y’s answer as filed out of time and thus authorizing the reception of evidence ex parte. If Y wants to file a petition for certiorari to set aside the RTC’s order, he should file it exclusively with the COMELEC in aid of its appellate jurisdiction pursuant to Section 4 of Rule 65. This is because the petition relates to an order issued by the RTC in an election case which is appealable to the COMELEC.
“In aid of its appellate jurisdiction” should not be confused or equated with the phrase “in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.” In Galang v. Geronimo,2 from which the facts in the above hypothetical were taken, Y made such an error. Y filed the petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court instead of the COMELEC on his belief that the petition for certiorari cannot be filed with the COMELEC because it would have been exercising original not appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court dismissed Y’s petition holding that it was the COMELEC which has exclusive jurisdiction over the petition.
The following TRUE-OR-FALSE question appeared in the 2011 Remedial Law Bar Exam.3
“TRUE or FALSE. In the exercise of its original jurisdiction, the Sandiganbayan may grant petitions for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.”
Many of us would answer FALSE. The answer to the question, however, is TRUE. The Sandiganbayan would certainly be exercising original jurisdiction when it grants a petition for writ of habeas corpus. What the law requires is that the grant of such a petition must be in aid of the Sandiganbayan’s appellate jurisdiction, but this requirement was not the subject of the question.
It should be noted that the phrase “in aid of its appellate jurisdiction” necessarily limits a court’s jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, and habeas corpus. For instance, the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction to issue the writ of certiorari against an RTC order in an ordinary collection case because the Sandiganbayan does not have appellate jurisdiction over a collection case. The Sandiganbayan, however, would have jurisdiction to issue the writ against an RTC order in a case involving an office-related crime of a public officer whose salary grade is below 27. The judgment or final order of the RTC in such a case would be appealable to the Sandiganbayan.4
On the other hand, the Court of Appeals has certiorari jurisdiction to set aside an MTC order although it does not have appellate jurisdiction over the MTC. The reason is that the CA has jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari whether or not the writ is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.5
The principle behind the phrase “in aid of its appellate jurisdiction” has been employed by the Supreme Court to determine where jurisdiction lies in those cases where there is no express statutory grant of jurisdiction. Thus, Section 4 of Rule 65 provides that the COMELEC has exclusive jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus in aid of its appellate jurisdiction even if there is no law expressly conferring such jurisdiction to the COMELEC. This provision is based on the doctrine that if a court or body has appellate jurisdiction over a case as provided by statute, then it also has Rule 65 jurisdiction to set aside or enjoin acts or proceedings in that particular case.
In City of Manila v. Grecia-Cuerdo,6 SM Prime Holdings filed a complaint with the RTC against the City of Manila for the refund of erroneously collected local taxes. The RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction against the City of Manila. The City of Manila subsequently filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari to set aside the order granting preliminary injunction. The issue was whether it was the Court of Appeals or the Court of Tax Appeals which had jurisdiction over the petition for certiorari. The City of Manila argued that since no law expressly confers certiorari jurisdiction on the CTA, it was the CA which had jurisdiction over the petition.
The Supreme Court held that it was the CTA which had jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that since appellate jurisdiction over SM Prime Holdings’ complaint for local tax refund is vested in the CTA, it necessarily follows that a petition for certiorari seeking nullification of an interlocutory order issued in the said case should likewise be filed with the CTA. 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.
-oOo-
- Sec. 4, P.D. No. 1606. While Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides that the petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus may be filed “with the Sandiganbayan, whether or not the same is in aid of the court’s appellate jurisdiction,” this is clearly just an oversight. The Rules of Court cannot amend substantive law (Sec. 5[5], Art. VIII, Constitution). What should govern is P.D. No. 1606. ↩︎
- 643 SCRA 631 (2011). En banc. ↩︎
- Question No. 11(c). ↩︎
- The petition for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, and habeas corpus, in aid of the Sandiganbayan’s appellate jurisdiction, shall be filed either with the Sandiganbayan or the Supreme Court (see Sec. 4 of P.D. No. 1606). ↩︎
- Section 9(1), B.P. Blg. 129. ↩︎
- 715 SCRA 182 (2014). En banc. ↩︎
