Supreme Court and its Proceedings:

The Supreme Court of the Philippines functions as the court of last resort. It is the only
Constitutional Court in the country. The adjudicative power of Supreme Court is contained in the
a single and encompassing provision of Philippine fundamental law – the Section 1, Article VIII
of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, to wit:

“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.”

The expanded definition of judicial power seems to be the immediate reaction to abuse of
recourse to the political question doctrine, a dictum that the judiciary does not pass upon the
wisdom of legislation or of the executive action in consonance therewith or upon matters that,
under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people themselves in the exercise of sovereign
power.1 Albeit the seemingly pervasive and limitless power of the Supreme Court, it does not
ignore the doctrine of separation of powers between and among the three branches of the
government. The Court does not negate all acts of the co-equal branches simply because of
perceived view of grave abuse of discretion on their part. However, in cases where the grave
abuse of discretion in the exercise of executive or legislative power was evident and clear, the
Supreme Court will not hesitate to wield its power to nullify the acts of its coordinate branches
of the government.

The Court does not only take on purely justiciable questions but also charge with
administrative responsibility over the entire judicial system in the country. It exercises
administrative supervision over all lower courts comprising of first level courts - Metropolitan
Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in
Cities, second level courts – Regional Trial Courts, inclusive of Court of Appeals, Court of Tax
Appeals, and Sandiganbayan, including its personnel2. The Court performs its supervisory
functions through the Office of the Court Administrator3 in which all major actions must be
subject to prior approval of the Supreme Court. Likewise, the Court also supervises the Judicial
and Bar Council which has primary task of recommending appointees to the Judiciary and the
Office of the Ombudsman for the President’s perusal.4 Moreover, the Court has supervision over
Philippine Judicial Academy which is tasked which is tasked with the implementation of a
continuing program of judicial education for justices, judges, court personnel and lawyers. 5 More
so, the Court is vested with powers to promulgate rules concerning the protection and

1 Vitug, J. (2003). An Introduction to the Philippine Supreme Court. Arellano Law and Policy Review, 3.
2 Section 6, Article VIII, 1987 Philippine Constitution
3 Presidential Decree 828 (1975)
4 Article VIII, Section 8(1) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
5 Republic Act No. 8557 (1998)

1
enforcement of constitutional rights, pleadings, practice, and procedure in all courts, admission
to the practice of law, Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the under-privileged.6

The Section 5, Article VIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution enumerates the original
and appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, to wit:

xxx xxx xxx

(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors,
other public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas
corpus.

(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or

certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final
judgments and orders of lower courts in:
(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any
treaty, international or executive agreement, law,
presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in question.
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost,
assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation
thereto.
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is
in issue.
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is
reclusion perpetua or higher.
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is
involved.
xxx xxx xxx

In exercising its adjudicative powers, the Supreme Court may sit en banc or, in its
discretion, in divisions of three, five, or seven members.7 The cases which are required to be
heard en banc include: (1) all cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or
executive agreement, or law; (2) controversies involving the constitutionality, application, or
operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other
regulations; (3) cases heard by a division of the Court when the required majority in the division
is not obtained8; (4) instances when the Supreme Court would modify or reverse a doctrine or
principle of law previously laid down either en banc or in division9; (5) administrative cases
where the vote is for dismissal of a judge of a lower court10; (6) all contests relating to the
election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-President11; (7) criminal cases in

6 Section 5 (5), Article VIII, 1987 Philippine Constitution

7 Section 4(1), Article VIII, 1987 Philippine Constitution
8 Section 4(2, 3), Article VIII, 1987 Philippine Constitution
9 Section 3(k), Rule 3, A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC, Internal Rules of the Supreme Court
10 Section 11, Article VIII, 1987 Philippine Constitution
11 Section 4, Article VII, 1987 Philippine Constitution

2
which the appealed decision imposes the death penalty or reclusion perpetua12; (8) cases raising
novel questions of law13; (9) cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls14;
(10) cases involving decisions, resolutions, and orders of the Civil Service Commission, the
Commission on Elections, and the Commission on Audit 15; (11) cases where the penalty
recommended or imposed is the dismissal of a judge, the disbarment of a lawyer, the suspension
of any of them for a period of more than one year, or a fine exceeding forty thousand pesos 16;
(12) cases involving the reinstatement in the judiciary of a dismissed judge, the reinstatement of
a lawyer in the roll of attorneys, or the lifting of a judge’s suspension or a lawyer’s suspension
from the practice of law17; (13) cases involving conflicting decisions of two or more divisions18;
(14) Division cases where the subject matter has a huge financial impact on businesses or affects
the welfare of a community19; (15) subject to Section 11 (b) of this rule, other division cases that,
in the opinion of at least three Members of the Division who are voting and present, are
appropriate for transfer to the Court en banc20; (16) cases that the Court en banc deems of
sufficient importance to merit its attention21; and (17) all matters involving policy decisions in
the administrative supervision of all courts and their personnel. 22 Except in those cases that by
Constitutional provisions mandate the hearing en banc and those provided under the A.M. No.
10-4-20-SC, all other cases may be resolved by the Court either en banc or division.23 The
decisions of the Court uniformly can be decided with the concurrence of the majority of the
Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues and voted thereon. 24

A division of the Court may not review a case already passed upon by another division of
the Court. There is nothing in law nor in jurisprudence that sanction such a proceeding. Another,
a writ of certiorari cannot be issued by the Court en banc to annul a decision of one of the
Court’s division.25 The Court en banc is not an appellate tribunal vis-à-vis the divisions and
exercises no appellate or supervisory jurisdiction over the latter; and a division of the Court is the
Supreme Court as fully and veritably as the Court en banc itself.26 Clearly, the Supreme Court,
by tradition and in our system of judicial administration, has the last word on what the law is. It
is the final arbiter of any justiciable controversy. There is only one Supreme Court from whose
decisions all other courts should take their bearing. When a right or fact has been judicially tried
and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, so long as it remains unreversed, it should
be conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them in law or estate.27

12 Section 3(b), Rule 3, A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC, Internal Rules of the Supreme Court
13 Section 3(c), Rule 3, A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC, Internal Rules of the Supreme Court
14 Section 3(d), Rule 3, A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC, Internal Rules of the Supreme Court
15 Section 3(e), Rule 3, A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC, Internal Rules of the Supreme Court
16
Section 3(f), Rule 3, A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC, Internal Rules of the Supreme Court
17 Section 3(g), Rule 3, A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC, Internal Rules of the Supreme Court
18 Section 3(i), Rule 3, A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC, Internal Rules of the Supreme Court
19 Section 3(l), Rule 3, A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC, Internal Rules of the Supreme Court
20 Section 3(m), Rule 3, A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC, Internal Rules of the Supreme Court
21 Section 3(n), Rule 3, A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC, Internal Rules of the Supreme Court
22 Section 3(o), Rule 3, A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC, Internal Rules of the Supreme Court
23 Section 4, Rule 3, A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC, Internal Rules of the Supreme Court
24 Church Assistance Program, Inc. v. Sibulo, G.R. No. 76552, 21 March 1989
25 Bienvenido Garcia v. Second Division, Supreme Court of the Philippines, G.R. No. 85676, 22

November 1988, En Banc Minute Resolution

26 Ando, et al. v. Hon. Judge Fortunato Valloces, et. al., G.R. No. 88099, First Division Minute

Resolution, May 28, 1990

27 Miranda v. Court of Appeals, G.R. 59730, February 11, 1986

3
 Normally, cases reach the Court through Rule 45 (Appeal by Certiorari to the Supreme
Court) or Rule 65 (Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus). Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, a
person may file a verified petition for review on certiorari on the judgment, final order or
resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts.
The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth. The petition
shall be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution
appealed from, or of the denial of the petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in
due time after notice of the judgment. On the other hand, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides
that a verified petition for certiorari may be filed in court when any tribunal, board or officer
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess its or his
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and
there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The
petition must allege the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or
modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs
as law and justice may require.

In catena of cases, the Court has consistently elaborated on the difference between Rule
45 and 65 petitions. A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is an ordinary appeal. It is
a continuation of the case from the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, RTC, or other courts. The
petition must only raise questions of law. On the contrary, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
is an original action. It seeks to correct errors of jurisdiction. An error of jurisdiction is one in
which the act complained of was issued by the court, officer, or quasi-judicial body without or in
excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion which is tantamount to lack of or in
excess of jurisdiction. The purpose of the remedy of certiorari is to annul void proceedings;
prevent unlawful and oppressive exercise of legal authority; and provide for a fair and orderly
administration of justice.28 Thus, in a Rule 45 review, the Court considers the correctness of the
assailed decision of the Court of Appeals, in contrast with the review for jurisdictional error that
the Court undertakes under Rule 65.

All cases filed with the Supreme Court must comply with the technicalities required
under the Rules of Court in order to be entertained. Nevertheless, if a rigid application of the
rules of procedure will tend to obstruct rather than serve the broader interests of justice in light of
the prevailing circumstances of the case, such as where strong considerations of substantive
justice are manifest in the petition, the Court may relax the strict application of the rules of
procedure in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction.29 Hence, procedural rules may be relaxed for
the most persuasive of reasons in order to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with
the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed.

The Court has allowed some meritorious cases to proceed despite inherent procedural
defects and lapses. This is in keeping with the principle that rules of procedure are mere tools
designed to facilitate the attainment of justice and that strict and rigid application of rules which
would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice must

28 Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association v Nicolas, G.R. No. 168394, October 6, 2008; Philippine National Bank v.
Gregorio, G.R. No. 194944, September 18, 2017
29 Heirs of Zaulda v. Zaulda, G.R. No. 201234, March 17, 2014

4
always be avoided. It is a far better and more prudent cause of action for the court to excuse a
technical lapse and afford the parties a review of the case to attain the ends of justice, rather than
dispose of the case on technicality and cause grave injustice to the parties, giving a false
impression of speedy disposal of cases while actually resulting in more delay, if not a
miscarriage of justice. 30

Cases filed with the Court are promptly raffled by a committee of three justices to a
member of the Court for initial study. If, following the deliberations, the case is found to be
meritorious or to pose substantive issue, the other party would be required to file a Comment.
After the comment is submitted, the case undergoes another round of discussion. A reply may
additionally be required from the petitioner. Customarily, a lengthy and more comprehensive
deliberation would be conducted if the recommendation given by the Justice to whom the case
has been assigned were to dismiss or deny the petition. If no agreement is reached during the
deliberations on any case, a hearing could be called during which the opposing parties are heard
on oral argument. Occasionally, the Court would call an amicus curiae particularly when
complex issues are involved and an expert opinion is desirable. If, during their deliberations, the
members feel that a full length decision is appropriate, the Court would then likely opt for giving
due course to the petition and requiring both parties to submit their respective memoranda on the
case. The Court disposes the case through full-blown or penned decisions, extended resolutions,
or minute resolutions. Nevertheless, when a case is disposed of by minute resolution, the Court,
in effect, adopts the decision handed down by the court a quo either because there has been no
reversible error or grave abuse of discretion committed by the appellate court.31

30 Philippine Bank of Communications v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 218901, February 15, 2017
31
Vitug, J. (2003). An Introduction to the Philippine Supreme Court. Arellano Law and Policy Review, 6