You are on page 1of 1

DFA & BSP v. HON. FRANCO T.

FALCON and BCA INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION For the implementation of Machine Readable Passport and Visa Project, the Department of Foreign Affairs published an invitation to bid for the supply of the needed machine readable passports and visas. Throughout the process, BCA International Corporation (BCA) emerged as the sole qualified bidder. Eventually, negotiation proceedings commenced and an agreement was drafted. The implementation of the agreement turned sour, thereafter, the DFA drafter another agreement with the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) for the supply, delivery, installation and commissioning of a system for the production of Electronic Passport Booklets or e-Passports. Due to this recourse by the DFA, the BCA filed a Petition for Interim Relief before the RTC, praying for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction with regard to the courses of action that DFA took, which the court granted on different occasions. The DFA and the BSP filed a petition for certiorari with the Court imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court when it granted interim relief to BCA. The BCA objects on the ground that the DFA et al., petitioners, did not follow the hierarchy of courts by filing their petition directly with the Court. ISSUE: Whether DFA et al. may file a petition directly with the Supreme Court HELD:

Although the direct filing of petitions for certiorari with the Supreme Court is discouraged when litigants may still resort to remedies with the lower courts, we have in the past overlooked the failure of a party to strictly adhere to the hierarchy of courts on highly meritorious grounds. Most recently, we relaxed the rule on court hierarchy in the case of Roque, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, 599 SCRA 69 (2009), wherein we held: The policy on the hierarchy of courts, which petitioners indeed failed to observe, is not an iron-clad rule. For indeed the Court has full discretionary power to take cognizance and assume jurisdiction of special civil actions for certiorari and mandamus filed directly with it for exceptionally compelling reasons or if warranted by the nature of the issues clearly and specifically raised in the petition. In sum, BCA failed to successfully rebut the presumption that the official acts (of Mr. Custodio and Mr. Zuniga) were done in good faith and in the regular performance of official duty. Even assuming the verifications of the petition suffered from some defect, we have time and again ruled that [t]he ends of justice are better served when cases are determined on the meritsafter all parties are given full opportunity to ventilate their causes and defensesrather than on technicality or some procedural imperfections. In other words, the Court may suspend or even disregard rules when the demands of justice so require.

You might also like