G.R. No. 187836
November 25, 2014
Facts
During the incumbency of Mayor Alfredo Lim, Ordinance 8187 is enacted which allowed the continued stay of oil depots. Hence, the petitioners now seek to nullify Ordinance 8187 since it contains provisions contrary to a former ordinance, namely, Ordinance No 8027.
Herein petitioners alleged that 1) the enactment of the assailed Ordinance is not a valid exercise of police power because the measures provided therein do not promote the general welfare of the people; 2) the conditions at the time the Court declared Ordinance No 8027 constitutional still exist; 3) the Manila City Council effectively refuses to recognize Article 8 of the Civil Code; and 4) Ordinance No 8187 is violative of Sections 15 and 16, Article II of the Constitution. Mayor Atienza, et al, in GR No 187916 filed a Petition for Prohibition, Mandamus and Certiorari with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Injunction against the enforcement of Ordinance No 8187, claiming that it violates health and environment-related municipal laws, and international conventions and treaties to which the Philippines is a state party.
On the other hand, Respondent Mayor Lim argue that the petitioners failed to observe the principle of hierarchy of courts. He further contends that the petitions are based on unfounded fears; the assailed ordinance is a valid exercise of police power; that it is consistent with the general welfare clause and public policy, and is not unreasonable; that it does not run contrary to the Constitution, municipal laws, and international conventions; and that the petitioners failed to overcome the presumption of validity of the assailed ordinance. Intervenors, oil companies, sought the outright dismissal of the petitions on similar grounds.
Issue
Whether or not the petitioners failed to observe the principle of hierarchy of courts by directly resorting the petition to the Supreme Court?
Ruling
No. Under the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, the petitions should be filed first at the lower court before it will be forwarded to the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court held in the case of Jaworski v PAGCOR that procedural technicalities can be set aside when strict compliance thereof would not promote substantial justice. In other words, the doctrine of hierarchy of courts may be relaxed provided petition or the issues raised in the petition are of transcendental importance.
In the case at bar, the petition is of transcendental importance since Ordinance 8187 is contrary to the aim of Ordinance 8027, that is, to protect the residents of Manila from catastrophic devastation that will surely occur in cases of terrorist attacks on the Pandacan Terminals.
Therefore, the doctrine of hierarchy of courts can be set aside since there is the presence of transcendental importance which warrants the relaxation of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.