G.R. No. 217158 , March 12, 2019
GIOS-SAMAR, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON GERARDO M. MALINAO, PETITIONER, VS. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS AND CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

This is a Concurring Opinion by Justice Leonen in the case where petitioner GIOS-SAMAR, Inc. filed a petition against the Department of Transportation and Communications and the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines. The petitioner made various allegations, including claims of monopolization, abuse of dominant position, combinations in restraint of trade, and that certain corporations serve as dummies for cartels or foreigners. The petition was filed directly with the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The primary issue, as discussed in the Concurring Opinion, pertains to the propriety of the Supreme Court exercising its original jurisdiction over the petition, considering the nature of the allegations and the evidence required, and the application of the doctrines of hierarchy of courts and justiciability in constitutional adjudication.

RULING

Justice Leonen concurred with the disposition of the case as proposed in the main Decision written by Justice Jardeleza. The Concurring Opinion clarified and emphasized the following points:
1. The claims made by the petitioner require a contextual appreciation of evidence, which is a function best performed by a trial court at first instance. The Supreme Court generally does not receive evidence and rarely makes findings of fact when contested by the parties.
2. The petition confused competition law concepts (abuse of dominant position vs. combinations in restraint of trade) and made broad, generalized allegations without corresponding evidence, which border on being contemptuous.
3. The doctrine of respect for the hierarchy of courts must be observed. While the Constitution grants the Supreme Court original and concurrent jurisdiction over certain writs, it is primarily a court of last resort that leads the judiciary by breaking new ground or reiterating precedents, not a court of first instance.
4. The Supreme Court’s finding of grave abuse of discretion in its original jurisdiction is generally only over cases where the material facts are not contested. Petitioners bear the burden of clearly explaining why the hierarchy of courts doctrine should not apply.
5. The Opinion proposed a clarification between jurisdiction and justiciability. Even if the Supreme Court has jurisdiction (the competence to hear a case), it retains the discretion, based on canons of constitutional adjudication, to deny addressing constitutional issues based on justiciability. This involves the elements of an actual case or controversy, locus standi, ripeness for adjudication, and whether the constitutional issue is the very lis mota.
6. The rules of constitutional avoidance and judicial restraint are paramount. Unless imperatively called for by actual and non-controversial facts, the Court should not express policy and should channel democratic deliberation to the proper forums. Exceptions to these rules, such as when issues are of “transcendental importance,” are rare and must be applied cautiously.