Dear PAO,

I was informed that a decision in a civil action for small claim is not appealable, and the possible remedy is to file a petition for certiorari. Assuming I will avail of said legal remedy, can I file it directly with the Supreme Court?

Thanos

Dear Thanos,

Small claims are governed by AM 08-8-7-SC dated March 1, 2022 or The Rules On Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts. Under Section 1 (A)(2), Rule I of said rules, it provides that:

“Small Claims Cases, as defined hereunder, where the claim does not exceed One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs.

“A ‘small claim’ is an action that is purely civil in nature where the claim or relief raised by the plaintiff is solely for the payment or reimbursement of a sum of money. It excludes actions seeking other claims or reliefs aside from payment or reimbursement of a sum of money and those coupled with provisional remedies.

“The claim or demand may be:

“(a) For money owed under any of the following:

“1. Contract of Lease;

“2. Contract of Loan and other credit accommodations;

“3. Contract of Services; or

“4. Contract of Sale of personal property, excluding the recovery of the personal property, unless it is made the subject of a compromise agreement between the parties.

” (b) The enforcement of barangay amicable settlement agreements and arbitration awards, where the money claim does not exceed One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00), provided that no execution has been enforced by the barangay within six (6) months from the date of the settlement or date of receipt of the award or from the date the obligation stipulated or adjudged in the arbitration award becomes due and demandable, pursuant to Section 417, Chapter VII of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as The Local Government Code of 1991.”

It is true that a decision in a civil action for small claims is not appealable. This is in consonance with Section 24, Rule IV, of the same rules, which partly states that: “The decision shall be final, executory and unappealable.” However, even if appeal is not available, the aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari if the court that rendered the judgment lacked jurisdiction or committed grave abuse of discretion, following Section 1, Rule 65, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended:

“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, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging 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.” (Emphasis ours)

Nonetheless, an aggrieved party does not have the absolute discretion to file a verified petition directly with the Supreme Court because you need to observe the “Principle of Hierarchy of Courts.” This principle was explained in Nacionales vs. Hon. Solde-Annogui and Pera Multi-Purpose Cooperative, GR 249080, Sept. 15, 2021, where the Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting, stated that:

“x x x This Court’s original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari (as well as prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction) is not exclusive. It is shared by this Court with Regional Trial Courts x x x, which may issue the writ enforceable in any part of their respective regions. It is also shared by this Court, and by the Regional Trial Court, with the Court of Appeals x x x. This concurrence of jurisdiction is not, however, to be taken as according to parties seeking any of the writs an absolute, unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which application therefor will be directed. There is after all a hierarchy of courts. That hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals, and should also serve as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs. A becoming regard for that judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level (‘inferior’) courts should be filed with the Regional Trial Court and those against the latter, with the Court of Appeals. A direct invocation of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. This is established policy. It is a policy that is necessary to prevent inordinate demands upon the Court’s time and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further over-crowding of the Court’s docket.” (Emphasis supplied)

Applying the cited decision to your situation, the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and the concerned regional trial court exercise concurrent jurisdiction to hear a petition for certiorari from a decision rendered by the first-level court, but a party must observe the principle of hierarchy of courts. The Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction may be invoked only in instances where there are special and important reasons.

Thus, we advise you to file your petition for certiorari before the appropriate regional trial court to avoid violating the hierarchy of courts, absent any special and important reasons for directly resorting to the Supreme Court.

We hope that we have substantially answered your queries. This legal opinion is based on the facts you narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary if the facts were different, altered, changed, or elaborated.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attomey’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected].