Facts:

• The petitioner, Lanao del Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. (LANECO), represented by General Manager Engr. Resnol C. Torres, filed a case against the Provincial Government of Lanao del Norte (PGLN), represented by Governor Hon. Mohamad Khalid Q. Dimaporo, Provincial Treasurer Mildred J. Hingco, and other respondents including the National Electrification Administration (NEA), Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management (PSALM), Department of Energy (DOE), and the Commission on Audit (COA).
• The case was decided on August 29, 2017, under G.R. No. 185420, with Justice Velasco, Jr. as the ponente.
• LANECO was granted a franchise in 1972 to distribute electricity in various municipalities of Lanao del Norte.
• To finance its operations, LANECO contracted several loans from NEA, which were later assumed by PSALM under the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001 (R.A. No. 9136).
• The PGLN enacted a Provincial Revenue Code in 1993, imposing real property taxes under the Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160).
• In 2006, the PGLN demanded payment of unpaid real property taxes from LANECO, amounting to over P31 million.
• LANECO questioned the validity of these tax assessments and the Provincial Revenue Code through various legal actions, including a Petition for Declaratory Relief and a Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus before the Supreme Court.
• Lower courts had previously ruled in favor of LANECO, declaring the Provincial Revenue Code invalid and unconstitutional.
• Despite these rulings, the PGLN continued to demand payment and issued warrants of levy on LANECO's properties.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• The Supreme Court dismissed LANECO's petition for lack of merit.
• The Court found that LANECO was guilty of forum shopping.
• The Court ruled that the PGLN did not commit grave abuse of discretion in l...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The Court ruled that LANECO violated the principle of hierarchy of courts by directly filing the petition before the Supreme Court without any special or important reason.
• The RTC and the CA have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, and direct resort to the Supreme Court should only be allowed in exceptional circumstances.
• LANECO was found guilty of forum shopping, as it had filed multiple cases before different fora, all based on the same cause of action and seeking substantially similar reliefs.
• LANECO's actions were intended to secure a favorable outcome by filing in multiple courts.
• Th...continue reading