Doctrine of non-interference (judicial stability)

This principle states that courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction cannot interfere with each other’s orders. (Lapu-lapu Dev v. Group Management) Another term for the non-interference doctrine is "judicial stability."

Therefore, a Regional Trial Court has no power or authority to nullify or enjoin the enforcement of a writ of possession issued by another Regional Trial Court. (Suico Industrial Corp v. Court of Appeals)

The principle also bars a court from reviewing or interfering with the judgment of a co-equal court over which it has no appellate jurisdiction or power of review. (Villamor vs. Salas)The doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference in the regular orders or judgments of a co-equal court, as an accepted axiom in adjective law, serves as an insurmountable barrier to the competencia of the Makati court to entertain the habeas corpus case on account of the previous assumption of jurisdiction by the Cavite court, and the designation of petitioners as guardians ad litem of the ward. This is based on the policy of peaceful co-existence among courts of the same judicial plane. (Panlilio, G.R. No. 113087)

The doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference in the regular orders or judgments of a co-equal court is an elementary principle in the administration of justice: no court can interfere by injunction with the judgments or orders of another court of concurrent jurisdiction having the power to grant the relief sought by the injunction. The rationale for the rule is founded on the concept of jurisdiction: a court that acquires jurisdiction over the case and renders judgment therein has jurisdiction over Its judgment, to the exclusion of all other coordinate courts, for its execution and over all its incidents, and to control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of ministerial officers acting in connection with this judgment. (.R. No. 194767, October 14, 2015)