G.R. No. 175723 , February 4, 2014
THE CITY OF MANILA, represented by MAYOR JOSE L. ATIENZA, JR., and MS. LIBERTY M. TOLEDO, in her capacity as the City Treasurer of Manila, Petitioners, vs. HON. CARIDAD H. GRECIA-CUERDO, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 112, Pasay City; SM MART, INC.; SM PRIME HOLDINGS, INC.; STAR APPLIANCES CENTER; SUPERVALUE, INC.; ACE HARDWARE PHILIPPINES, INC.; WATSON PERSONAL CARE STORES, PHILS., INC.; JOLLIMART PHILS., CORP.; SURPLUS MARKETING CORPORATION and SIGNATURE LINES, Respondents.

FACTS

The City of Manila, through its Treasurer, assessed local business taxes for 2002 against the private respondent corporations under Sections 14, 15, 16, 17, and 21 of the Revised Revenue Code of Manila (RRCM). The respondents paid the assessed amount of ₱19,316,458.77 under protest, as it was a precondition for their business permits. They subsequently filed a complaint for refund and prohibition with a prayer for a TRO and preliminary injunction before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, arguing that the cited RRCM provisions violated the limitations against double taxation under the Local Government Code and that the amending ordinance had been declared illegal by the Department of Justice. The RTC granted the writ of preliminary injunction. The petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) assailing the RTC’s orders. The CA dismissed the petition, ruling it had no jurisdiction. The CA held that since the main case (a local tax refund case) fell under the expanded appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) per Republic Act No. 9282 , a petition for certiorari assailing an interlocutory order from that case should also be filed with the CTA. The petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) has jurisdiction over a special civil action for certiorari assailing an interlocutory order issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in a local tax case.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the CTA has jurisdiction over such a petition for certiorari. The Court explained that Republic Act No. 9282 expanded the CTA’s jurisdiction, elevating it to a collegiate court of special jurisdiction. Under the principle of adherence of jurisdiction (or continuity of jurisdiction), an appellate court that reviews a final judgment also acquires jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders issued in the case. Since the CTA exercises exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review decisions of the RTC in local tax cases, it follows that it also has jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs (like certiorari) in aid of its appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory matters arising from those cases. The Court further noted that the main case had already been decided with finality by the RTC in favor of the respondents, rendering the specific issues on the preliminary injunction moot and academic. However, the Court resolved the jurisdictional issue due to its significance and because it was capable of repetition yet evading review. The Court also addressed a procedural error, noting the petitioners should have filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 instead of a special civil action under Rule 65, but relaxed the rules in the interest of substantial justice.