What is the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?
[2] Concurrent original jurisdiction
(a) With CA in petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the RTC, CSC, Central Board of Assessment Appeals, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), and quasi-judicial agencies, all subject to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts
(a-1) With CA for petitions for the issuance of writs of kalikasan, subject to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts
(b) With the CA and RTC in petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against lower courts and bodies and in petitions for quo warranto, and writs of habeas corpus, all subject to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
(c) With CA, RTC and Sandiganbayan for petitions for writs of amparo and habeas data
(d) Concurrent original jurisdiction with the RTC in cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers and consuls.
[3] Appellate jurisdiction by way of petition for review on certiorari (appeal by certiorari under Rule 45) against CA, CTA en banc, Sandiganbayan, RTC on pure questions of law; and in cases involving the constitutionality or validity of a law or treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance or regulation, legality of a tax, impost, assessment, toll or penalty, jurisdiction of a lower court; and CTA in its decisions rendered en banc. [4] Exceptions in which factual issues may be resolved by the Supreme Court:
(a) When the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures;
(b) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;
(c) When there is grave abuse of discretion;
(d) When the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts;
(e) When the findings of facts are conflicting;
(f) When in making its findings the CA went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee;
(g) When the findings are contrary to the trial court;
(h) When the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;
(i) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner‘s main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent;
(j) When the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and
(k) When the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, could justify a different conclusion.