Scribd
Upload
606 views1 page

Quesada Vs DOJ

This case involved a petition for certiorari filed directly with the Supreme Court challenging the dismissal by the Secretary of Justice of the petitioner's petition for review of a resolution by an investigating prosecutor finding probable cause in an estafa case. The Supreme Court held that filing the petition for certiorari directly with them violated the hierarchy of courts, as the Court of Appeals or regional trial court would have been the appropriate forum. The Supreme Court is a court of last resort and should not be burdened with cases in the first instance when other courts are able to handle them. Respecting the hierarchy of courts prevents overburdening the Supreme Court's docket and allows them to focus on matters within their exclusive jurisdiction.

Uploaded by

lucci_1182
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
606 views1 page

Quesada Vs DOJ

This case involved a petition for certiorari filed directly with the Supreme Court challenging the dismissal by the Secretary of Justice of the petitioner's petition for review of a resolution by an investigating prosecutor finding probable cause in an estafa case. The Supreme Court held that filing the petition for certiorari directly with them violated the hierarchy of courts, as the Court of Appeals or regional trial court would have been the appropriate forum. The Supreme Court is a court of last resort and should not be burdened with cases in the first instance when other courts are able to handle them. Respecting the hierarchy of courts prevents overburdening the Supreme Court's docket and allows them to focus on matters within their exclusive jurisdiction.

Uploaded by

lucci_1182
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

QUESADA vs. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE G.R. No. 150325 August 31, 2006 500 SCRA 454 SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

: Facts: Respondent Teruel filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor in Mandaluyong City an affidavitcomplaint against petitioner, Camacho, Jr., and Corgado with the crime of estafa under Article 315 (2) and (3) of the Revised Penal Code, which in turn was opposed by petitioner who filed a counter-affidavit thereto. Thereafter, an Information for estafa was filed with the RTC upon the recommendation of Assistant City Prosecutor Esteban A. Tacla, Jr. after the latters issuance of a Resolution finding probable cause. In the meantime, petitioner filed with the Department of Justice a Petition for Review challenging the Resolution of the Investigating Prosecutor, but was however, dismissed. Pending the criminal case at the RTC, petitioner filed with the Supreme Court a Petition for Certiorari alleging that the Secretary of Justice, in dismissing his Petition for Review, acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Issue: Whether or not the filing of the present petition directly with the Supreme Court constitutes an utter violation of the rule on hierarchy of courts Held: Yes. The Supreme Court is a court of last resort, and must so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it by the fundamental charter and immemorial tradition. It cannot and should not be burdened with the task of dealing with causes in the first instance. Its original jurisdiction to issue the so-called extraordinary writs should be exercised only where absolutely necessary or where serious and important reasons exist therefor. Hence, that jurisdiction should generally be exercised relative to actions or proceedings before the Court of Appeals, or before constitutional or other tribunals, bodies or agencies whose acts for some reason or another are not controllable by the Court of Appeals. Where the issuance of an extraordinary writ is also within the competence of the Court of Appeals or a Regional Trial Court, it is in either of these courts that the specific action for the writs procurement must be presented. The hierarchy of courts is determinative of the venue of appeals, and should also serve as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs. It is a policy that is necessary to prevent inordinate demands upon the Courts time and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further over-crowding of the Courts docket.

You might also like