![]() ![]() There is a hierarchy of courts determinative of the venue of appeals which should also serve as a general determinant of the proper forum for the application for the extraordinary writs. ![]() We have already ruled that while it is true that this Court, the Court of Appeals, and the Regional Trial Courts have concurrent original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus, such concurrence does not accord litigants unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which application therefor may be directed. 7160) which took effect on 1 January 1992, 1 this Court would have declined to accept the invocation of its original jurisdiction to issue the extraordinary writ prayed for. 1508 and Section 18 of the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure requiring prior referral of disputes to the Lupong Tagapamayapa of the proper barangay.Īt the outset, it must be stated that were it not for the importance of the issue to be resolved in the light of the revised law on katarungang pambarangay provided for in the Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. ![]() The motion to dismiss is based on the failure of the private respondents, as the offended parties therein, to comply with Section 6 of P.D. Contreras of Branch 61 of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Makati, Metro Manila, denying the petitioner's motion to dismiss Criminal Cases Nos. CASTRO, Provincial Prosecutor of Pasig, Metro Manila SUSANNA ATAYDE and WINNIE JAVIER, respondents.Īlbon & Serrano Law Office for petitioner.Īssailed in this petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is the order dated 2 July 1993 of public respondent Judge Maximo C. CONTRERAS, Presiding Judge, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 61, Makati, Metro Manila HON. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |