EDGAR T. BARROSO, Petitioner, v. HON. JUDGE GEORGE E. OMELIO, Travellers Insurance Surety Corporation based on its counterbond.

x x
PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 14, DAVAO x.4chanrobleslaw
CITY AND TRAVELLERS INSURANCE & SURETY CORPORATION,
ANTONIO V. BATAO, REGIONAL MANAGER, Respondents.
An Alias Writ of Execution dated April 28, 2009 was then issued against both
Dennis Li and respondent Travellers based on the counterbond it issued in
DECISION favor of the former, and pursuant to said writ, Sheriff Anggot served a
Demand Letter on Travellers. In a letter dated July 1, 2009 addressed to
PERALTA, J.: Sheriff Anggot, Travellers asked for a period of seven (7) days within which
to validate the counterbond and, thereafter, for its representative to discuss
This deals with the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court the matter with complainant, herein petitioner.
praying that the Order1dated July 29, 2009, and the Order2 dated September
15, 2010, both of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 14 (RTC-Br. However, on July 10, 2009, instead of appearing before RTC-Br. 16,
14), be reversed and set aside. Travellers filed a separate case for Declaration of Nullity, Prohibition,
Injunction with Prayer for Writ of Preliminary Injunction & Temporary
The antecedent facts are as follow. Restraining Order (TRO), and Damages, which was raffled to RTC-Br. 14.
Said petition prayed for the following reliefs: (a) the issuance of a TRO
Sometime in 2007, herein petitioner filed with the Regional Trial Court of enjoining Sheriff Anggot and herein petitioner from implementing and
Davao City, Branch 16 (RTC-Br. 16) a Complaint for sum of money, enforcing the Writ of Execution dated April 28, 2009, and after hearing, the
damages and attorney's fees against Dennis Li. The complaint included a issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction; (b) judgment be rendered
prayer for the issuance of a writ of attachment, and after Dennis Li filed his declaring the counterbond and its supporting documents to be null and void;
Answer, RTC-Br. 16 granted herein petitioner's application for a Writ of ordering Sheriff Anggot and herein petitioner to desist from further
Attachment and approved the corresponding attachment bond. On the other implementing the Writ of Execution dated April 28, 2009; and (c) ordering
hand, Dennis Li filed a counter-attachment bond purportedly issued by herein Sheriff Anggot and herein petitioner to pay Travellers actual and moral
respondent Travellers Insurance & Surety Corporation (Travellers). damages, attorney's fees and costs of suit.

On January 7, 2008, petitioner filed a Motion for Approval of Compromise After hearing on the application for a writ of preliminary injunction, herein
Agreement. Thereafter, RTC-Br. 16 issued a Judgment on Compromise respondent judge issued the assailed Order dated July 29, 2009 directing the
Agreement dated January 22, 2008. However, Dennis Li failed to pay the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction. RTC-Br. 14, in its Order dated
sums of money as provided for under said Judgment on Compromise July 29, 2009, ratiocinated, thus:cralawlawlibrary
Agreement. Herein petitioner then filed a Motion for Execution and RTC-Br.
16 issued a Writ of Execution solely against Dennis Li. When said Writ of Be it noted that under letter (b) of paragraph six (6) of respondents' [herein
Execution against Dennis Li was returned by the Sheriff unsatisfied, petitioner among them] answer with counterclaim they alleged that: "x x x
petitioner then filed a Motion for Execution of Judgment upon the The evidence the counter-attachment bond is fake has yet to be proven by
Counterbond. Acting on said Motion, RTC-Br. 16 issued an Order3 dated the petitioner [Travellers] in the proper forum. Till then, said judicial officers
April 2, 2009, pertinent portions of which read as follows:cralawlawlibrary enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their judicial duties .
. ."
Since the Writ was returned "UNSATISFIED", plaintiff filed a Motion for
Execution of Judgment upon the Counter-Bond, a copy of which was sent to Precisely, herein petitioner [comes] before this Court, which is the "proper
the Head Office of Travellers Insurance Surety Corporation. In accordance forum" referred to by the respondents in their answer, to prove that the
with the Rules, a summary hearing to determine the liability under the counter-attachment bond which herein respondents are about to implement,
counterbond was set. Notice of said hearing was likewise sent to the Head is fake. And the only remedy for the petitioner to hold in abeyance the
Office of the surety corporation at the address appearing on the face of the enforcement of the subject writ of execution lest the decision of this Court on
counterbond issued. For reasons unknown, the notice was simply returned. the merit more so if favorable to the petitioner will become moot and
academic or phyrric victory, is the writ of preliminary injunction.
The case law cited by movant x x x justifies the issuance of an Alias Writ of
Execution against the Defendant Dennis Li but this time including the Anent the respondents' defense that "this Court has no jurisdiction to
interfere with the judgment of RTC, Branch 16 in Davao City" x x x, suffice it Elections and the Election Officer of Bacolod City, Atty. Mavil V.
to state that this Court is not interfering with the Order or judgment of RTC- Majarucon6 in this wise:cralawlawlibrary
Br. 16 which is a coordinate Court. On the contrary[,] this Court is merely
exercising its complementary jurisdiction with that of the jurisdiction of RTC x x x we explained the necessity of the application of the hierarchy of courts:
16 - a coordinate court, the latter - to hypothetical ly state, was hoodwinked The Court must enjoin the observance of the policy on the hierarchy of
into believing as to the regularity and due production of the subject counter- courts, and now affirms that the policy is not to be ignored without serious
attachment bond now subject to be executed and enforced against herein consequences. The strictness of the policy is designed to shield the
petitioner. While this Court is aware of this doctrine of non-interference by a Court from having to deal with causes that are also well within the
Court against the Order or judgment of another coordinate court, this competence of the lower courts, and thus leave time for the Court to
doctrine, however, is not without exception. The maxim is: For every rule, deal with the more fundamental and more essential tasks that the
there is an exception; for in every room, there is always a door. This case is Constitution has assigned to it. The Court may act on petitions for the
an exception, x x x5chanrobleslaw extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus only when
absolutely necessary or when serious and important reasons exist to justify
On July 30, 2009, the Writ of Preliminary Injunction was issued, commanding an exception to the policy.
Sheriff Anggot to refrain from implementing the Writ of Execution dated April
28, 2009. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the afore-quoted Order xxxx
was denied in the Order dated September 15, 2010. The doctrine that requires respect for the hierarchy of courts was
created by this court to ensure that every level of the judiciary performs
Hence, the instant petition was filed with this Court, alleging that respondent its designated roles in an effective and efficient manner.
judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of
jurisdiction and gross ignorance of the law by (1) acting on respondent Trial courts do not only determine the facts from the evaluation of the
Travellers' petition despite the lack of jurisdiction of RTC-Br. 14; (2) issuing evidence presented before them. They are likewise competent to determine
the writ of preliminary injunction without requiring Travellers to put up an issues of law which may include the validity of an ordinance, statute, or even
injunction bond; and (3) assuming jurisdiction over the action for prohibition an executive issuance in relation to the Constitution. To effectively perform
and injunction against the executive sheriff of a coequal court. these functions, they are territorially organized into regions and then into
branches. Their writs generally reach within those territorial boundaries.
Herein petitioner, while acknowledging that the Court of Appeals (CA) had Necessarily, they mostly perform the all-important task of inferring the facts
concurrent jurisdiction over this petition, justified his immediate resort to this from the evidence as these are physically presented before them. In many
Court by pointing out that respondent judge's conduct shows his gross instances, the facts occur within their territorial jurisdiction, which properly
ignorance of the law, and any other remedy under the ordinary course of law present the "actual case" that makes ripe a determination of the
would not be speedy and adequate. constitutionality of such action. The consequences, of course, would be
national in scope. There are, however, some cases where resort to courts at
Private respondents, on the other hand, counter that its petition before RTC- their level would not be practical considering their decisions could still be
Br. 14 involved the issue of the validity of a contract, hence, the court appealed before the higher courts, such as the Court of Appeals.
presided by respondent judge had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the
same. Private respondent then reiterated its arguments regarding the The Court of Appeals is primarily designed as an appellate court that reviews
dubious authenticity and genuineness of the counterbond purportedly issued the determination of facts and law made by the trial courts. It is collegiate in
by Travellers and filed by Dennis Li before RTC-Br. 16. nature. This nature ensures more standpoints in the review of the actions of
the trial court. But the Court of Appeals also has original jurisdiction over
It must first be emphasized that trifling with the rule on hierarchy of courts is most special civil actions. Unlike the trial courts, its writs can have a
looked upon with disfavor by the Court. Said rule is an important component nationwide scope. It is competent to determine facts and, ideally, should act
of the orderly administration of justice and not imposed merely for whimsical on constitutional issues that may not necessarily be novel unless there are
and arbitrary reasons. This doctrine was exhaustively explained in The factual questions to determine.
Diocese of Bacolod, represented by the Most Rev. Bishop Vicente M.
Navarra and the Bishop Himself in His Personal Capacity v. Commission on This court, on the other hand, leads the judiciary by breaking new ground or
further reiterating - in the light of new circumstances or in the light of some
confusion of bench or bar - existing precedents. Rather than a court of first the RTC of Iligan City.
instance or as a repetition of the actions of the Court of Appeals, this court
promulgates these doctrinal devices in order that it truly performs that In the aforementioned case, the Court struck down such action of the RTC of
role.7chanrobleslaw Marawi City, ruling thus:cralawlawlibrary

However, in the same case, it was acknowledged that for exceptionally The doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference in the regular orders or
compelling reasons, the Court may exercise its discretion to act on special judgments of a co-equal court is an elementary principle in the administration
civil actions for certiorari filed directly with it. Examples of cases that present of justice: no court can interfere by injunction with the judgments or orders of
compelling reasons are: (1) those involving genuine issues of constitutionality another court of concurrent jurisdiction having the power to grant the
that must be addressed at the most immediate time; (2) those where the relief sought by the injunction. The rationale for the rule is founded on the
issues are of transcendental importance, and the threat to fundamental concept of jurisdiction: a court that acquires jurisdiction over the case and
constitutional rights are so great as to outweigh the necessity for prudence; renders judgment therein has jurisdiction over Its judgment, to the exclusion
(3) cases of first impression, where no jurisprudence yet exists that will guide of all other coordinate courts, for its execution and over all its
the lower courts on such issues; (4) where the constitutional issues raised incidents, and to control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of
are better decided after a thorough deliberation by a collegiate body and with ministerial officers acting in connection with this judgment.
the concurrence of the majority of those who participated in its discussion; (5)
where time is of the essence; (6) where the act being questioned was that of Thus, we have repeatedly held that a case where an execution order has
a constitutional body; (7) where there is no other plain, speedy, and been issued is considered as still pending, so that all the proceedings on
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law that could free petitioner from the execution are still proceedings in the suit. A court which issued a writ of
the injurious effects of respondents' acts in violation of their constitutional execution has the inherent power, for the advancement of justice, to correct
rights; and (8) the issues involve public welfare, the advancement of public errors of its ministerial officers and to control its own processes. To hold
policy, the broader interest of justice, or where the orders complained of are otherwise would be to divide the jurisdiction of the appropriate forum in the
patent nullities, or where appeal can be considered as clearly an resolution of incidents arising in execution proceedings-Splitting of
inappropriate remedy.8 jurisdiction is obnoxious to the orderly administration of justice.

Verily, the issues in this case could have been competently resolved by the xxxx
CA, thus, the Court was initially inclined to reject taking cognizance of this
case. However, we cannot close our eyes to the unbecoming conduct To be sure, the law and the rules are not unaware that an issuing court may
exhibited by respondent judge in obstinately issuing an injunction against the violate the law in issuing a writ of execution and have recognized that there
orders of a co-equal court despite this Court's consistent reiteration of the should be a remedy against this violation. The remedy, however, is not the
time-honored principle that "no court has the power to interfere by injunction resort to another co-equal body but to a higher court with authority to nullify
with the judgments or decrees of a court of concurrent or coordinate the action of the issuing court. This is precisely the judicial power that the
jurisdiction. The various trial courts of a province or city, having the 1987 Constitution, under Article VIII, Section 1, paragraph 2, speaks of and
same or equal authority, should not, cannot, and are not permitted to which this Court has operationalized through a petition for certiorari, under
interfere with their respective cases, much less with their orders or Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
judgments."9 The issue raised in this case, therefore, falls under one of the
exceptions to the rule on hierarchy of courts, i.e., where the order xxxx
complained of is a patent nullity.
It is not a viable legal position to claim that a TRO against a writ of execution
Atty. Cabili v. Judge Balindong10 is closely analogous to the present case. In is issued against an erring sheriff, not against the issuing Judge. A TRO
Cabili, the RTC of Iligan City issued a writ of execution, but the judgment enjoining the enforceability of a writ addresses the writ itself, not merely the
debtor, instead of complying with said writ, filed a separate petition for executing sheriff x x x As already mentioned above, the appropriate action is
prohibition and mandamus with application for issuance of temporary to assail the implementation of the writ before the issuing court in whose
restraining order (TRO) and/or preliminary injunction with the RTC of Marawi behalf the sheriff acts, and, upon failure, to seek redress through a higher
City. After the hearing, the Presiding Judge of the RTC of Marawi City issued judicial body, xxx.11chanrobleslaw
the TRO restraining the sheriff from enforcing the writ of execution issued by
Applying the foregoing ruling, it is quite clear that, in this case, the issuance
of the subject writ of preliminary injunction was improper and, thus,
correctible by certiorari. Herein respondent judge does not have jurisdiction
to hinder the enforcement of an order of a co-equal court. He must be aware
that said co-equal court had the exclusive jurisdiction or authority to correct
its own issuances if ever there was, indeed, a mistake. There is no question,
therefore, that subject writ of preliminary injunction is null and void.

Further, had Judge Omelio not been dismissed from the service in 2013 for
gross ignorance of the law and violation of judicial conduct, he could have
been subjected to an investigation again for gross ignorance due to his
unprecedented acts in the case at bar.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED and the Orders dated July
29, 2009 and September 15, 2010, both issued by the Regional Trial Court of
Davao City, Branch 14, are hereby SET ASIDE and
declared NULL and VOID.

SO ORDERED