Hierarchy of Courts: Why Direct Appeals to the Supreme Court on Factual Matters Fail

The Supreme Court has long held that while it shares original jurisdiction with lower courts over certain cases, litigants cannot simply choose to file directly before it. In Gios-Samar, Inc. v. Department of Transportation and Communications (G.R. No. 217158, March 12, 2019), the Court dismissed a petition challenging the constitutionality of bundling six airport projects, ruling that the issues raised were factual in nature and should have been brought before a trial court first. This case clarifies the doctrine of hierarchy of courts and reminds litigants that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.

The Case: Challenging the Bundling of Airport Projects

In December 2014, the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) and the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines (CAAP) posted an Invitation to Pre-qualify and Bid for the development, operations, and maintenance of six regional airports: Bacolod-Silay, Davao, Iloilo, Laguindingan, New Bohol (Panglao), and Puerto Princesa. The total cost of the projects was ₱116.23 billion, with a concession period of 30 years.

The projects were later bundled into two groups: Bundle 1 (Bacolod-Silay and Iloilo, worth ₱50.66 billion) and Bundle 2 (Davao, Laguindingan, and New Bohol, worth ₱59.66 billion). The Puerto Princesa airport was not included in the bundling.

Gios-Samar, Inc., a non-governmental organization composed of subsistence farmers and fisherfolk from Samar, filed a petition for prohibition directly with the Supreme Court. The petitioner, suing as a taxpayer and invoking the "transcendental importance" of the issue, argued that the bundling was unconstitutional because it would create a monopoly, violate anti-dummy laws, restrain trade, and give companies with shaky financial backgrounds direct access to the projects.

The Issue: Law or Fact?

The main issue was whether the bundling of the projects was constitutional. The petitioner insisted that its arguments raised purely legal questions. The Court, however, disagreed.

Upon examination, the Court found that the petitioner's arguments were "inextricably intertwined with underlying questions of fact." For instance, to prove that bundling would create a monopoly, one must establish: the relevant market, whether an entity achieved a dominant position in that market, and whether that entity abused its position. These determinations require evidence and factual inquiry.

Similarly, to show that bundling violated the Anti-Dummy Law, the petitioner needed to identify a specific corporation that falsely simulated Filipino ownership — a factual allegation it failed to make. The Court noted that Executive Order No. 65 even exempts infrastructure projects covered by the BOT Law from the 40% foreign ownership limitation.

The Ruling: Dismissed for Failure to State a Cause of Action

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court held that the petitioner failed to allege ultimate facts to support its claims. Merely stating legal conclusions — that bundling is unconstitutional, creates a monopoly, or restrains trade — without supporting facts is insufficient.

The Court also clarified that the Constitution does not prohibit monopolies per se. Citing Anglo-Fil Trading Corporation v. Lazaro, the Court explained that exclusivity is inherent in the grant of a concession to a private entity to deliver public services. The Philippine Competition Act (RA No. 10667) does not prohibit achieving a dominant position; it only penalizes the abuse of that position.

The Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts

The Court took the opportunity to explain the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. While the Supreme Court has original and concurrent jurisdiction with the Regional Trial Courts and the Court of Appeals over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus, direct recourse to the Court is proper only to resolve questions of law.

The Court emphasized that it is not a trier of facts. It is not equipped, either by structure or by rule, to receive and evaluate evidence in the first instance. These are the primary functions of lower courts and regulatory agencies. The doctrine of hierarchy of courts operates as a "constitutional filtering mechanism" that allows the Court to focus on its more fundamental tasks.

Significantly, the Court ruled that this doctrine "cannot be brushed aside by an invocation of the transcendental importance or constitutional dimension of the issue or cause raised." The mere allegation that a case involves a matter of public interest does not justify bypassing the proper courts.

Practical Takeaways

• File cases involving factual disputes in the proper lower court first. The Supreme Court will dismiss petitions that require the reception of evidence, even if they raise constitutional questions.
• Plead ultimate facts, not just conclusions. A petition must state the specific facts that support a claim, such as identifying which entity committed the alleged violation and how.
• The doctrine of hierarchy of courts is a bright-line rule. Invoking "transcendental importance" or the "constitutional dimension" of a case will not excuse a direct filing before the Supreme Court.
• Monopolies are not automatically unconstitutional. The law prohibits the abuse of a dominant position, not the mere existence of one, especially where exclusivity is inherent in a government-granted concession.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.