This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-04-16 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Even assuming that ALECO has a cause of action that is ripe for the extraordinary writ of certiorari, the petition should have been initially filed with the Court of Appeals under the principle of hierarchy of courts. It has been our consistent rule that while this Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts (for writs enforceable within their respective regions) to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari, the litigants are well advised against taking a direct recourse to this Court. This concurrence is not to be taken as unrestrained freedom of choice as to which court the application of the writ will be directed.[19] Instead, litigants should initially seek the proper relief from the lower courts. As a court of last resort, this Court should not be burdened with the task of dealing with causes in the first instance. Where the issuance of an extraordinary writ is concurrently within the competence of the Court of Appeals, litigants must observe the principle of hierarchy of courts. This Court's original jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs should be exercised only where absolutely necessary, or where serious and important reasons therefor exist.[20] In this case, ALECO failed to show the existence of such serious and important reasons to justify their direct resort to this court in violation of the principle of hierarchy of courts. | |||||
|
2006-02-09 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| [24] Paradero v. Abragan, G.R. No. 158917, 01 March 2004, 424 SCRA 155, 163. | |||||