Linsangan-Maldia v. Philippine Deposit Insurance Corp.
This is a civil case, Eufrosina Linsangan-Maldia vs. Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation, decided by the Philippine Supreme Court on January 10, 2019. The Court denied the petition for review on certiorari filed by the petitioner for the Court of Appeals' dismissal of her petition for blatant disregard of judicial hierarchy of courts and other defects. The principle of judicial hierarchy of courts provides that the appropriate forum is the court lowest in the judicial hierarchy, except for extraordinary circumstances. The petitioner failed to prove any of the circumstances meriting an exception from this doctrine, hence, the dismissal of her petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals.
ADVERTISEMENT
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241713. January 10, 2019.]
EUFROSINA LINSANGAN-MALDIA, petitioner,vs. PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 10, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 241713 (Eufrosina Linsangan-Maldia v. Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation). — 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.
After review, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in its Decision, when it dismissed the petition for blatant disregard of judicial hierarchy of courts, among other defects.
Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is positive that the jurisdiction over any alleged act or omission by a corporation, such as respondent, is cognizable concurrently by the Regional Trial Court, the Court of Appeals, and the Sandiganbayan, if in aid of the latter's jurisdiction. Jurisprudence has, however, categorically qualified this otherwise unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum, through the doctrine of judicial hierarchy of courts. 1
The principle of judicial hierarchy of courts provides that the appropriate forum is the court lowest in the judicial hierarchy, the rationale being two-fold, namely: (a) it would be an imposition upon the precious time of the higher courts; and (b) it would cause an inevitable and resultant delay, intended or otherwise, in the adjudication of cases, that some of these cases may have to be remanded or referred to the lower court as the proper forum under the rules of procedure, or because these courts are better equipped to resolve the issues given that this Court is not a trier of facts. 2 The only exception to this principle is if remedies are not obtainable in the inferior courts, or if exceptional and compelling circumstances justify the availing of the extraordinary writs with the higher courts. 3 Petitioner having failed to prove any of the circumstances meriting exception from this doctrine, her petition was properly dismissed.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated August 11, 2016 and Resolution dated August 28, 2018 in CA-G.R. SP No. 137230 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See Mendoza v. Mayor Villas, G.R. No. 187256, February 23, 2011, 644 SCRA 347, 354.
2. See Tanog v. Balindong, G.R. No. 187464, November 25, 2015, 775 SCRA 467, 468.
3. See Chamber of Real Estate and Builders Associations, Inc. (CREBA) v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 183409, June 18, 2010, 621 SCRA 295, 296.
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU