CITY OF MANILA v.

GRECIA-CUERDO
February 4, 2014 | Peralta, J. | Appeals to the SC | Conejero

PETITIONER: The City of Manila, represented by Mayor Jose Atienza Jr. and City Treasurer Liberty Toledo
RESPONDENTS: Hon. Caridad Grecia-Cuerdo as Presiding Judge of RTC Br-112 Pasay City; SM Mart Inc.; SN Prime Holdings
Inc; Star Appliances Center; Supervalue Inc.; Ace Hardware Philippines Inc; Watsons Personal Care Stores Inc; Jollimart Phils
Corp; Surplus Marketing Corp; and Signature Lines
SUMMARY: City of Manila, through Toledo, assessed taxes totaling P19,316,458.77 against private respondents who paid to
get their business permits and subsequently filed a complaint for refund with the RTC, which in turn granted a preliminary
injunction. Manila filed a petition for certiorari with the CA assailing the RTC orders, which CA denied for lack of jurisdiction,
hence this petition. The SC held that it was the CTA which had authority to take cognizance of petitions for certiorari
questioning interlocutory orders issued by the RTC in local tax cases.
DOCTRINE: See Issue 2 and Ratio 2 on Rule 45 petition for certiorari.

FACTS:
1. City of Manila, through Toledo, assessed taxes totaling P19,316,458.77 for January to December 2002 against private
respondents-corporations, which were paid under protest as a precondition for the issuance of their business permits.
The taxes were collected pursuant to Sections 14-21 of the Revised Revenue Code of Manila (RRCM).
2. Private respondents filed the RTC complaint denominated as "Refund or Recovery of Illegally and/or Erroneously-
Collected Local Business Tax, Prohibition with Prayer to Issue TRO and Writ of Preliminary Injunction" assailing:
a. the RRCM sections as violative of double taxation limitations under Sec. 143 (h), RA 7160 [Local Govt Code]
b. petitioner city's Ordinance No. 8011 amending RRCM and which DOJ declared illegal and unconstitutional
3. The RTC July 9, 2004 order granted writ of preliminary injunction. Petitioners MR was denied in October 2004.
4. Petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari with the CA assailing both Orders of the RTC. The CA on 6 April 2006
dismissed the petition saying it had no jurisdiction, and denied their MR on 29 November 2006.

ISSUES/HELD: Petition denied.

1. Whether the instant petition should be denied for being moot and academicYES, the trial court, in its
decision on the merits in the main case on the RTC preliminary injunction, has already ruled in favor of
respondents and the same decision is final and executory.

2. Whether an instant special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is proper to assail the
CA Resolutions dismissing the petition and MRNO, petitioners availed of the wrong remedy; they should
have filed a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari, which is a continuation of the appellate process over the
original case. However this petition can be treated as a petition for review on certiorari as it was filed within
the 15-day reglementary period for filing a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, that an error of
judgment is averred, and because of the significance of the issue on jurisdiction.

3. Whether the CTA has jurisdiction over a special civil action for certiorari assailing an interlocutory order
issued by the RTC in a local tax caseYES, the authority of the CTA to take cognizance of petitions for
certiorari questioning interlocutory orders issued by the RTC in a local tax case is included in the powers
granted by the Constitution and by law as well as inherent in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

RATIO

1. The main Decision ruling for respondents and granting a tax refund had already become final and executory
per the TC-issued Certificate of Finality on October 20, 2008 and Writ of Execution on November 25, 2009.

Moot and academic: no justiciable controversy, and resolution of the same has no practical use or value

o EX: if the question is capable of repetition, yet evading review

 o Here, the jurisdiction issue is resolved because of its significance and to guide the bench and bar

2. In cases where an assailed judgment or order is considered final, the remedy of the aggrieved party is appeal.
The assailed CA Resolutions are in the nature of a final order as they disposed of the petition completely.

A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is an independent action based on grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and will lie only if there is no appeal or any plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law; it is not a substitute for a lost appeal

The Court has treated a petition for certiorari as a petition for review on certiorari, such as here, when:

o the petition is filed within the same reglementary period of a petition for review on certiorari;

o errors of judgment are averred; and

o there is sufficient reason to justify the relaxation of the rules.

3. The CTA has jurisdiction over certiorari assailing an interlocutory RTC order in a local tax case by virtue of the
Constitution, RA 1125 creating the CTA, RA 9282 amending RA 1125, and its inherent powers from the general
grant of jurisdiction.

a) When RA 9282 transferred exclusive appellate jurisdiction over RTC tax cases to the CTA 1, it can reasonably be
assumed that it intended to transfer also such power as is necessary, if not indispensable, in aid of such
appellate jurisdiction such as the authority to issue a writ of certiorari.

J.M. Tuason v. Jaramillo/De Jesus v. CA: "if a case can be appealed to a particular body, then the latter has
jurisdiction to issue the extraordinary writ of certiorari, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction."

Section 6, Rule 135 of the present Rules of Court provides that when by law, jurisdiction is conferred on a
court or judicial officer, all auxiliary writs, processes and other means necessary to carry it into effect may
be employed by such court or officer.

b) The power of the CTA, by constitutional mandate2, includes that of determining whether or not there has been
GAD amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the RTC in issuing an interlocutory order in cases
falling within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction3 of the tax court.

1 RA 1125 (16 June 1954) created the CTA and giving to the said court jurisdiction over decisions of the Collector of Internal Revenue on
taxes and fees; decisions of the Commissioner of Customs on customs fees or charges; and decisions of provincial or city Boards of
Assessment Appeals on real property assessment and taxation.
RA 9282 (30 March 2004) amended RA 1125 by expanding the jurisdiction of the CTA in Section 7, enlarging its membership and elevating its
rank to the level of a collegiate court with special jurisdiction, giving it appellate jurisdiction over RTC decisions in local tax cases
2 Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides that judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts
as may be established by law and that judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights
which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
3 The authority of quasi-judicial tribunals to issue writs of certiorari involves the exercise of original jurisdiction which must be expressly
conferred by the Constitution or by law and cannot be implied from existence of appellate jurisdiction.
c) Agreeing that jurisdiction over their certiorari petition lies with the CA would confirm an anathema split-
jurisdiction situation between two judicial bodies, the CA and the CTA

such was not the legislative motive as the law expressly confers on the CTA, a court with specialization
over tax matters, the role of judicial review over local tax cases without mention of another court

appellate jurisdiction over the complaint for tax refund is vested in the CTA, so a certiorari petition seeking
nullification of an interlocutory order issued in the said case should, likewise, be filed with the same court

supervisory power or jurisdiction of the CTA to issue a writ of certiorari in aid of its appellate jurisdiction
should co-exist and complement its appellate jurisdiction to review RTC final orders and decisions

d) Courts like the CTA possess certain inherent powers which may be said to be implied from a general grant of
jurisdiction, in addition to those expressly conferred on them.

Section 1 of RA 9282 states that the CTA shall be of the same level as the CA and shall possess all the
inherent powers of a court of justice.

These inherent powers are such powers as are necessary for the ordinary and efficient exercise of
jurisdiction; or are essential to the existence, dignity and functions of the courts, as well as to the due
administration of justice; or are directly appropriate, convenient and suitable to the execution of their
granted powers