This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-02-04 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| existence of appellate jurisdiction.[20] Thus, in the cases of Pimentel v. COMELEC,[21] Garcia v. De Jesus,[22] Veloria v. COMELEC,[23] Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board v. Lubrica,[24] and Garcia v. Sandiganbayan,[25] this Court has ruled against the jurisdiction of courts or tribunals over petitions for certiorari on the ground that there is no law which expressly gives these tribunals such power.[26] It must be observed, however, that with the exception of Garcia v. Sandiganbayan,[27] these rulings pertain not to regular courts but to tribunals exercising quasi-judicial powers. With respect to the Sandiganbayan, Republic Act No. 8249[28] now provides that the special criminal court has exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance of the writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari,habeas corpus, injunctions, and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. | |||||
|
2005-04-29 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Jurisdiction, or the legal power to hear and determine a cause or causes of action, must exist as a matter of law.[26] It is settled that the authority to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus involves the exercise of original jurisdiction which must be expressly conferred by the Constitution or by law.[27] It is never derived by implication. Indeed, while the power to issue the writ of certiorari is in some instance conferred on all courts by constitutional or statutory provisions, ordinarily, the particular courts which have such power are expressly designated.[28] | |||||
|
2000-07-06 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| (b) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction: (1) On appeal, from the final judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in cases originally decided by them in their respective territorial jurisdictions; (2) By petition for review, from the final judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over cases originally decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, in their respective jurisdictions x x x x This law was applied in Garcia, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan[10] where the principal issue was the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over special civil actions for prohibition, mandamus, and quo warranto. This Court held that the Sandiganbayan was a court with only special and limited jurisdiction, hence, could not exercise jurisdiction over the petition for prohibition, mandamus, and quo warranto filed by petitioner; thus - | |||||