Judicial Policy of NOT Entertaining Direct Resort to SC

Third, the petition is barred under the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. Such doctrine is one of the structural aspects intended for the orderly administration of justice. The Supreme Court has concurrent original jurisdiction with the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals in the issuance of the extraordinary writ of certiorari and prohibition.However, in availing of such extraordinary writ, petitioners do not have the complete liberty or discretion to file their petition in any of these courts. In the absence of special reasons, they cannot disregard the doctrine of the hierarchy of courts in our judicial system by seeking relief directly from the Supreme Court despite the fact that the same is available in the lower tribunals in the exercise of their original concurrent jurisdiction.

Significantly, the petition raises issues of fact which cannot be addressed to the Supreme Court. For instance, in determining whether the concessionaires are public utilities or mere agents of MWSS, there must be an examination of the intention of MWSS and the concessionaires at the time of the bidding process, negotiation, and execution of the Concession Agreements. Certainly, this matter is a factual issue requiring presentation and evaluation of evidence such as bidding documents, memoranda, and the testimonies of the participants of the bidding and contract negotiations. Moreover, petitioners maintain that the assailed Resolutions could authorize the increase of water rates beyond the 12% rate of return limit. While such claim is purely speculative in nature, it would nonetheless require a very complicated and technical computation of the current rate of return which entails a determination of income, the valuation of assets, which assets are to be included in the computation, and other factual factors. Again, these matters are beyond the Courts function as it is not a trier of facts.

While petitioners claim that the assailed Resolutions are in flagrant violation of the Constitution and statutory provisions defining public utilities, however, they failed to cite any Constitutional provision being violated.

In Santiago v. Vasquez, et al., the Supreme Court held: x x x. We discern in the proceedings in this case a propensity on the part of petitioner, and, for that matter, the same may be said of a number of litigants who initiate recourses before us, to disregard the hierarchy of courts in our judicial system by seeking relief directly from this Court despite the fact that the same is available in the lower courts in the exercise of their original concurrent jurisdiction, or is even mandated by law to be sought therein. This practice must be stopped, not only because of the imposition upon the precious time of this Court but also because of the inevitable and resultant delay, intended or otherwise, in the adjudication of the case which often has to be remanded or referred to the lower court as the proper forum under the rules of procedure, or as better equipped to resolve the issues since this Court is not a trier of facts. We, therefore, reiterate the judicial policy that this Court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts or where exceptional and compelling circumstances justify availment of a remedy within and calling for the exercise of our primary jurisdiction. (G.R. No. 173044; December 10, 2007)