G.R. No. L-20308 November 15, 1967
PHILIPPINE PRODUCTS CO. and LUIS B. REYES, Judge, CFI of Manila, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and PACIFIC COPRA EXPORT CO., INC., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Philippine Products Co. filed Civil Case No. 27913 before the Court of First Instance of Manila to recover a sum from Primateria S.A. Zurich and others. The lower court rendered judgment holding Primateria S.A. Zurich liable. Petitioner appealed this decision directly to the Supreme Court. Subsequently, the lower court granted petitioner’s motion for execution pending appeal and, upon petitioner’s further motion, issued an order on October 21, 1960, requiring respondent Pacific Copra Export Co. to appear and be examined concerning its alleged indebtedness to Primateria S.A. Zurich. Respondent Export Company filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court (L-18361), which was dismissed for lack of merit on June 21, 1961, with final judgment entered on July 22, 1961. About three months later, on October 18, 1961, respondent Export Company filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals against the same respondents, invoking the same grounds alleged before the Supreme Court in L-18361, merely re-arranging their order of presentation. The Court of Appeals gave due course to the petition and rendered judgment granting it. Petitioner Philippine Products Co. appealed to the Supreme Court via the instant petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to entertain the petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by respondent Pacific Copra Export Co., Inc.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals in toto. The Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition for certiorari and prohibition. By statute (Section 30, Republic Act 296), the Court of Appeals may only issue such writs “in aid of its appellate jurisdiction,” meaning it can act on special civil actions concerning a matter incidental to the main case only if the main case is appealable to it. Here, the main case, Civil Case No. 27913, had been actually appealed to the Supreme Court and was pending determination there when the petition was filed with the Court of Appeals. Jurisdiction over the main case necessarily embraces all incidental matters arising therefrom. Furthermore, the petition filed with the Court of Appeals was identical in all respects to the one previously dismissed by the Supreme Court for lack of merit. Filing the same petition before an inferior court after a final dismissal by the Supreme Court was against the orderly set-up of judicial proceedings. The dismissal of the certiorari petition by the Supreme Court, grounded on lack of merit, is binding on the merits of the certiorari petition itself.