Principle of Judicial Hierarchy
[1] This is an ordained sequence of recourse to courts vested with concurrent jurisdiction, beginning from the lowest, on to the next highest, and ultimately to the highest. This hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals, and is likewise determinative of the proper forum for petitions for extraordinary writs. This is an established policy necessary to avoid inordinate demands upon the Court‘s time and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to preclude the further clogging of the Court‘s docket (Sec. 9[1], BP 129; Sec. 5[1], Art. VIII, Constitution of the Philippines).
[2] The Principle of Judicial Hierarchy of Courts most certainly indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level courts should be filed with the RTC and those against the latter should be filed in the Court of Appeals. This rule, however, may be relaxed when pure questions of law are raised (Miaque vs. Patag, GR Nos. 1790609-13).[3] A higher court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts. The SC is a court of last resort. It cannot and should not be burdened with the task of deciding cases in the first instances. Its jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs should be exercised only where absolutely necessary or where serious and important reasons exist.
[4] Petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level courts should be filed with the RTC and those against the latter with the CA. A direct invocation of the SC‘s original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only where there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition.
[5] The doctrine of hierarchy of courts may be disregarded if warranted by the nature and importance of the issues raised in the interest of speedy justice and to avoid future litigations, or in cases of national interest and of serious implications. Under the principle of liberal interpretations, for example, it may take cognizance of a petition for certiorari directly filed before it.
What are the reasons behind this doctrine?
[1] To prevent inordinate demands upon the Supreme Court's time and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and
[2] To prevent further overcrowding of the SC’s docket.
Thus, although the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court have CONCURRENT jurisdiction to issue:
[1] writs of certiorari
[2] prohibition
[3] mandamus
[4] quo warranto
[5] habeas corpus
[4] injunction
[xxx] such concurrence does not give the petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum.
BETWEEN TWO COURTS OF CONCURRENT JURISDICTION, THE CASE MUST FIRST BE FILED WITH THE LOWER COURT.
The Supreme Court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts, and exceptional and compelling circumstances, such as cases of national interest and of serious implications, justify the extraordinary remedy of writ of certiorari, calling for the exercise of its primary jurisdiction (Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog vs. Melicor, 455 SCRA 460 [2005]).
THE EXCEPTION IS WHEN THE CASE IS OF TRANSCENDENTAL IMPORTANCE.
[2] The Principle of Judicial Hierarchy of Courts most certainly indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level courts should be filed with the RTC and those against the latter should be filed in the Court of Appeals. This rule, however, may be relaxed when pure questions of law are raised (Miaque vs. Patag, GR Nos. 1790609-13).[3] A higher court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts. The SC is a court of last resort. It cannot and should not be burdened with the task of deciding cases in the first instances. Its jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs should be exercised only where absolutely necessary or where serious and important reasons exist.
[4] Petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level courts should be filed with the RTC and those against the latter with the CA. A direct invocation of the SC‘s original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only where there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition.
[5] The doctrine of hierarchy of courts may be disregarded if warranted by the nature and importance of the issues raised in the interest of speedy justice and to avoid future litigations, or in cases of national interest and of serious implications. Under the principle of liberal interpretations, for example, it may take cognizance of a petition for certiorari directly filed before it.
What is the doctrine of judicial hierarchy?
Pursuant to the doctrine of hierarchy, direct resort from the lower courts to the Supreme Court will not be entertained unless the appropriate remedy cannot be obtained in the lower tribunals.What are the reasons behind this doctrine?
[1] To prevent inordinate demands upon the Supreme Court's time and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and
[2] To prevent further overcrowding of the SC’s docket.
Thus, although the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court have CONCURRENT jurisdiction to issue:
[1] writs of certiorari
[2] prohibition
[3] mandamus
[4] quo warranto
[5] habeas corpus
[4] injunction
[xxx] such concurrence does not give the petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum.
BETWEEN TWO COURTS OF CONCURRENT JURISDICTION, THE CASE MUST FIRST BE FILED WITH THE LOWER COURT.
The Supreme Court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts, and exceptional and compelling circumstances, such as cases of national interest and of serious implications, justify the extraordinary remedy of writ of certiorari, calling for the exercise of its primary jurisdiction (Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog vs. Melicor, 455 SCRA 460 [2005]).
THE EXCEPTION IS WHEN THE CASE IS OF TRANSCENDENTAL IMPORTANCE.
