The Case: ALFEO D.

VIVAS, on his behalf and on behalf of the Shareholders of EUROCREDIT

COMMUNITY BANK, petitioner, vs. THE MONETARY BOARD OF THE BANGKO SENTRAL
NG PILIPINAS and the PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, respondents.

Facts:
Petitioner Vivas and his principals acquired the controlling interest in Rural Bank Faire, a
bank whose corporate life has already expired. BSP authorized extending the banks’
corporate life and was later renamed to EuroCredit Community Bank (ECBI). Through a
series of examinations conducted by the BSP, the findings bore that ECBI was illiquid,
insolvent, and was performing transactions which are considered unsafe and unsound
banking practices. Consequently ECBI was placed under receivership. Petitioner
contends that the implementation of the questioned resolution was tainted with
arbitrariness and bad faith, stressing that ECBI was placed under receivership without
due and prior hearing in violation of his and the bank’s right to due process. Assailing MB
Resolution No. 276, Vivas filed this petition for prohibition before the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Where the petition for prohibition should be filed?
Ruling:

The remedy sought must be petition for certiorari and not petition for prohibition.
Consequently, the petition should have been filed in the CA. Even if treated as a petition
for certiorari, the petition should have been filed with the CA. Section 4 of Rule 65 reads:

…. If it involves the acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise

provided by law or these Rules, the petition shall be filed in and cognizable only by the
Court of Appeals.

Settled rule in the case of (Bank of Commerce v. Planters Development Bank and Bangko
Sentral Ng Pilipinas); that the Monetary Board is a quasi-judicial agency. Moreover, even in
the absence of such provision, the petition is also dismissible because it simply ignored the
doctrine of hierarchy of courts. True, the Court, the CA and the RTC have original concurrent
jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. The concurrence of jurisdiction,
however, does not grant the party seeking any of the extraordinary writs the absolute freedom to
file a petition in any court of his choice. The petitioner has not advanced any special or important
reason which would allow a direct resort to the Supreme Court. Under the Rules of Court, a party
may directly appeal to this Court only on pure questions of law. In the case at bench, there are
certainly factual issues as Vivas is questioning the findings of the investigating team.

Doctrine Learned:
Judicial hierarchy demands that issuance of the extraordinary writs is within the competence of
the CA or the RTC, the special action for the obtainment of such writ must be presented to either
court. The Supreme Court will not entertain direct resort to the remedy being sought unless the
redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate lower courts; or where exceptional and
compelling circumstances, such as cases of national interest and with serious implications, justify
the availment of the extraordinary remedy of writ of certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus calling
for the exercise of its primary jurisdiction.
 John Amamanglon, prosecutor assigned at branch 37, filed a Motion to Transfer Case to a Branch
of Competent Jurisdiction
Judge Azarraga file a petition for Prohibition with Prayer for Temporary Restraining
Order/Preliminary Mandatory Injunction under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme
Court
Prosecutor Amamanglon also claimed that, as the prosecutor assigned to Branch 37, he was not among the
prosecutors who had been designated to handle cases exclusively involving violations of R.A. 9165.

the city prosecutor endorsed the assailed Orders of judge Azzaraga to the Office of the Solicitor
General for the appropriate review and filing of the necessary action. And the petitioner did then
file a petition for prohibition with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order/Preliminary Mandatory
Injunction under Rule 65.

while the Petition for Prohibition was pending, respondent judge issued an Order inhibiting himself
from hearing the case after private respondent alleged that the former was biased for the
prosecution. The cases were thereafter transferred to Branch 35, also a regular court, presided by
Judge Fe Gallon-Gayanilo.

Issue:
Can the Supreme Court can designate special courts from among the existing Regional Trial Courts in each
judicial region to exclusively try and hear cases involving violations of this Act in case of inhibition and
disqualification of the presiding judge.
Ruling:
No. The Executive Judge can designate special courts from among the existing Regional Trial Courts in
each judicial region to exclusively try and hear cases involving violations of this Act in case of inhibition
and disqualification of the presiding judge.

Petitioner interprets the Sec. 90 of RA 9165 to mean that a court must be specifically designated
by the Supreme Court as a special court. But what is Chap. V, Sec. 9 of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC if
not an express designation of a special court?

Chap. V, Sec. 9 of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC provides:

Raffle and re-assignment of cases in special courts where judge is disqualified or

voluntarily inhibits himself/herself from hearing case.—(a) Where a judge in a court
designated to try and decide

Thus, in cases of inhibition or disqualification, the executive judge is mandated to assign the drug
case to a regular court in the following order: first, to the pairing judge of the special court where
the case was originally assigned; and, second, if the pairing judge is likewise disqualified or has
inhibited himself, then to another regular court through a raffle. Under these exceptional
circumstances, this Court designated the regular court, ipso facto, as a special court—but only for
that case. Being a “designated special court,” it is likewise bound to follow the relevant rules in
trying and deciding the drug case pursuant to R.A. 9165.

The executive judges and presiding judges of special courts for drug cases shall hereby observe
the following guidelines: