Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT. 6, 2006

G.R. No. 174138 (Jesus C. Garcia v. The Honorable Ray Alan T. Drilon, etc., et al.)

For resolution of the Court are the Omnibus Petitions for Certiorari and for the Suspension of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC with Prayer for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order[1] filed by petitioner Jesus C. Garcia.

As can be gleaned from the records, a verified petition for a protection order under Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004, was filed by respondent Rosalie Garcia, wife of petitioner, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City, Branch 41.

On March 24, 2006, a Temporary Protection Order (TPO)[2] was then issued by respondent judge of the trial court, effective for thirty (30) days. On motion[3] of respondent Rosalie, an Amended TPO,[4] effective for thirty (30) days, was issued by the RTC on April 24, 2006.

Meanwhile, petitioner Jesus filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) a petition for certiorari with injunction and temporary restraining order questioning the constitutionality of Rep. Act No. 9262. The case was docketed as CA-G.R. CEB SP No. 01698. An amended petition[5] was later filed by petitioner Jesus before the CA on May 9, 2006.

On May 24, 2006, respondent Rosalie filed with the RTC a Motion to Renew and Modify the TPO,[6] which the court granted on the same date.

In the meantime, the CA, in CA-G.R. CEB SP No. 01698, issued, on May 26, 2006, a temporary restraining order[7] valid for 60 days, enjoining the respondents from enforcing the TPO and other orders pursuant thereto. The CA, however, allowed the continuation of trial and other proceedings before the RTC.[8]

After the TPO expired, respondent Rosalie, on August 8, 2006, moved and applied for the issuance of a TPO ex parte.[9] Thus, on August 23, 2006, the RTC issued another TPO.[10]

Petitioner Jesus now comes before the Court, assailing the August 23, 2006 TPO issued by the RTC for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction. Petitioner likewise seeks the suspension of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC.

The petition is dismissed.

Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution provides that "judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such other courts as may be established by law. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of bench or instrumentality of the government."[11] While the Court has original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus,[12] this Court's original jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs should be exercised only where absolutely necessary, or where serious and important reasons therefor exist.[13] Considering that no absolute necessity obtains herein, and there are neither serious nor important reasons for the invocation of the Court's jurisdiction, petitioner Jesus C. Garcia should have observed the principle of hierarchy of courts.

Observably, the issues brought for consideration in the instant case could have very well been ventilated in the Court of Appeals, where petitioner previously filed a certiorari case questioning the constitutionality of Rep. Act No. 9262.

IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant Omnibus Petitions for Certiorari and for the Suspension of Administrative Matter No. 04-10-11-SC with Prayer for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL

Clerk of Court

First Division

[1] Records, pp. 4-22.

[2] Id. at 23-26.

[3] Id. at 27-29.

[4] Id. at 32-35.

[5] Id. at 36-69.

[6] Id. at 70-76.

[7] Id. at 80-81.

[8] Id. at 81.

[9] Id. at 83-95.

[10] Id. at 112-126.

[11] Hanjin Engineering and Construction Co., Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 165910, April 10, 2006, 487 SCRA 78, 95.

[12] Article VIII, Section 5, 1987 Constitution.

[13] Torres, Jr. v. Esteves, G.R. No. 155403, March 31, 2006, 486 SCRA 349, 364.