This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-07-27 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The hierarchy of courts serves as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for appeals and petitions for extraordinary writs. [13] The rule on hierarchy of courts is not absolute, and the Court has full discretionary power to take cognizance of a petition filed directly with it. A direct invocation of this Court's original jurisdiction may be allowed where there are special and important reasons therefor clearly and specifically set out in the petition. [14] | |||||
|
2009-04-02 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| This Court's original jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus, and injunction is not exclusive but is concurrent with the Regional Trial Courts and the Court of Appeals in certain cases.[18] The Court has explained:This concurrence of jurisdiction is not, however, to be taken as according to parties seeking any of the writs an absolute, unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which application therefor will be directed. There is after all a hierarchy of courts. That hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals, and also serves as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs. A becoming regard of that judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level ("inferior") courts should be filed with the Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter, with the Court of Appeals. A direct invocation of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. This is [an] established policy. It is a policy necessary to prevent inordinate demands upon the Court's time and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further over-crowding of the Court's docket.[19] | |||||