5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly JURISDICTION FOR REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS HAVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DECIDE CASES INVOLVING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OR VALIDITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE RULES AND REGULATIONS. Petitioners fault the RTC for abruptly dismissing their complaint for lack of jurisdiction when it is well established in law and jurisprudence that Regional Trial Courts have jurisdiction over cases involving the constitutionality or legality of administrative rules and regulations, such as the Omnibus Policies promulgated by respondents herein. The reliance on our ruling in Fortich v. Corona, petitioners posit, is misplaced for the same involves a resolution issued by the Office of the President in the exercise of its quasijudicial functions. Hence, the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is not the appropriate remedy in the instant case. In their Comment, respondents counter that petitioners, in filing the instant action with this Court, committed serious procedural error for violating the doctrine of judicial hierarchy of courts. According to respondents, petitioners should have first filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals (CA), pursuant to Section 2(a), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.[6] Respondents further reiterated the validity of the subject Omnibus Policies. We rule in favor of petitioners. Section 2(c), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides that the mode of appeal in all cases involving only questions of law shall be by petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court in accordance with Rule 45.[7] Time and again, this Court has distinguished cases involving pure questions of law from those of pure questions of fact in the following manner: A question of fact exists when a doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsity of alleged facts. If the query requires a re-evaluation of the credibility of witnesses or the existence or relevance of surrounding circumstances and their relation to each other, the issue in that query is factual. On the other hand, there is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on certain state of facts and which does not call for an existence of the probative value of the evidence presented by the partieslitigants. In a case involving a question of law, the resolution of the issue rests solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances.[8] In the present petition, the appeal interposed by petitioners stems from the Orders of the RTC dismissing their complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The issue raised herein is one of jurisdiction over the subject matter, specifically, whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over petitioners’ complaint challenging the constitutionality of the Omnibus Policies issued by respondents. Jurisdiction is the right to act or the power and authority to hear and determine a case. [9] It is conferred only by the Constitution or by statute.[10] The question as to whether or not the dismissal by the lower court for lack of jurisdiction is proper involves the determination of whether, admitting the facts alleged in the complaint to be true, the elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58558 5/8