Lawyerly

GR No. 210551

2015-06-30

JOSE J. FERRER v. CITY MAYOR HERBERT BAUTISTA

PERALTA, J.

Before a tribunal, board, or officer may exercise judicial or quasi-judicial acts, it is necessary that there be a law that gives rise to some specific rights of persons or property under which adverse claims to such rights are made, and the controversy ensuing therefrom is brought before a tribunal, board, or officer clothed with power and authority to determine the law and adjudicate the respective rights of the contending parties.[14]

GR No. 183409

2010-06-18

CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE v. SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM

PEREZ, J.

The rationale for this rule is two-fold: (a) it would be an imposition upon the precious time of this Court; and (b) it would cause an inevitable and resultant delay, intended or otherwise, in the adjudication of cases, which in some instances had 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 because this Court is not a trier of facts.[19]

GR No. 180046

2009-04-02

REVIEW CENTER ASSOCIATION OF PHILIPPINES v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA

CARPIO, J.

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]

GR No. 154464

2008-09-11

FERDINAND A. CRUZ v. JUDGE PRISCILLA MIJARES

NACHURA, J.

This Court's jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and injunction is not exclusive; it has concurrent jurisdiction with the RTCs and the Court of Appeals. This concurrence of jurisdiction is not, however, to be taken as an absolute, unrestrained freedom to choose the court where the application therefor will be directed.[11] A becoming regard of the judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against the RTCs should be filed with the Court of Appeals.[12] The hierarchy of courts is determinative of the appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs; and only in exceptional cases and for compelling reasons, or if warranted by the nature of the issues reviewed, may this Court take cognizance of petitions filed directly before it.[13]

GR No. 147443

2008-02-11

LPBS COMMERCIAL v. VENANCIO J. AMILA

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

In Liga ng mga Barangay v. City Mayor of Manila[13] we held that

GR No. 165258

2008-02-04

ROSITA L. FLAMINIANO a.k.a. ROSE FLAMINIANO v. ARSENIO P. ADRIANO

QUISUMBING, J.

At the outset, pursuant to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, the instant petition for certiorari should have been filed with the Court of Appeals and not with this Court. Disregard of this doctrine warrants the outright dismissal of the petition. While the Court's original jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is concurrent with the RTCs and the Court of Appeals in certain cases, we emphasized in Liga ng mga Barangay National v. Atienza, Jr.[9] that such concurrence does not allow an unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum, thus

GR No. 146769

2007-08-17

SPS. MAXIMO ABADILLA AND ENGRACIA C. ABADILLA v. VIRGINIA HOFILEÑA-EUROPA

NACHURA, J.

As we held in Santiago v. Vasquez,[26] and reiterated in cases subsequent to it, the propensity of litigants and lawyers to disregard the hierarchy of courts in our judicial system by seeking relief directly from this Court must be put to a halt for two reasons: (1) it would be an imposition upon the precious time of this Court; and (2) it would cause an inevitable and resultant delay, intended or otherwise, in the adjudication of cases which, in numerous instances have to be remanded or referred to the lower court, the latter being the proper forum under the rules of procedure, or being better equipped to resolve the issues because this Court is not a trier of facts.[27] In the case at bench, we again apply, as well as remind litigants and lawyers of, the said policy.

GR NO. 159208

2006-08-18

RENNIE DECLARADOR v. SALVADOR S. GUBATON

CALLEJO, SR., J.

On the second issue, the rule is that a petition for review on certiorari which seeks to nullify an order of the RTC should be filed in the Court of Appeals in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.[10] A direct invocation of the original jurisdiction of the Court to issue writs of certiorari may be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor clearly and specifically set out in the petition.[11] This is an established policy necessary to prevent inordinate demands upon this Court's time and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further overcrowding of the Court's docket.[12]

GR NO. 165973

2005-06-29

LACSON HERMANAS v. HEIRS OF CENON IGNACIO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

At the outset, the instant petition for certiorari should have been filed with the Court of Appeals and not with this Court pursuant to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. Disregard of this rule warrants the outright dismissal of the petition. While the Court's original jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is concurrent with the Regional Trial Courts and the Court of Appeals in certain cases, we emphasized in Liga ng mga Barangay National v. Atienza, Jr.,[8] that such concurrence does not allow an unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum, thus

GR NO. 140954

2005-04-12

HEIRS OF BERTULDO HINOG: BERTULDO HINOG II v. ACHILLES MELICOR

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

The rationale for this rule is two-fold: (a) it would be an imposition upon the precious time of this Court; and (b) it would cause an inevitable and resultant delay, intended or otherwise, in the adjudication of cases, which in some instances had 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 because this Court is not a trier of facts.[32]

GR No. 148191

2003-11-25

CIR v. SOLIDBANK CORPORATION

PANGANIBAN, J.

Before us is a Petition for Review[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to annul the July 18, 2000 Decision[2] and the May 8, 2001 Resolution[3] of the Court of Appeals[4] (CA) in CA-GR SP No. 54599. The decretal portion of the assailed Decision reads as follows:

	GR No. 210551 2015-06-30	JOSE J. FERRER v. CITY MAYOR HERBERT BAUTISTA PERALTA, J.
Before a tribunal, board, or officer may exercise judicial or quasi-judicial acts, it is necessary that there be a law that gives rise to some specific rights of persons or property under which adverse claims to such rights are made, and the controversy ensuing therefrom is brought before a tribunal, board, or officer clothed with power and authority to determine the law and adjudicate the respective rights of the contending parties.[14]
	GR No. 183409 2010-06-18	CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE v. SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM PEREZ, J.
The rationale for this rule is two-fold: (a) it would be an imposition upon the precious time of this Court; and (b) it would cause an inevitable and resultant delay, intended or otherwise, in the adjudication of cases, which in some instances had 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 because this Court is not a trier of facts.[19]
	GR No. 180046 2009-04-02	REVIEW CENTER ASSOCIATION OF PHILIPPINES v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA CARPIO, J.
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]
	GR No. 154464 2008-09-11	FERDINAND A. CRUZ v. JUDGE PRISCILLA MIJARES NACHURA, J.
This Court's jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and injunction is not exclusive; it has concurrent jurisdiction with the RTCs and the Court of Appeals. This concurrence of jurisdiction is not, however, to be taken as an absolute, unrestrained freedom to choose the court where the application therefor will be directed.[11] A becoming regard of the judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against the RTCs should be filed with the Court of Appeals.[12] The hierarchy of courts is determinative of the appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs; and only in exceptional cases and for compelling reasons, or if warranted by the nature of the issues reviewed, may this Court take cognizance of petitions filed directly before it.[13]
	GR No. 147443 2008-02-11	LPBS COMMERCIAL v. VENANCIO J. AMILA YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
In Liga ng mga Barangay v. City Mayor of Manila[13] we held that
	GR No. 165258 2008-02-04	ROSITA L. FLAMINIANO a.k.a. ROSE FLAMINIANO v. ARSENIO P. ADRIANO QUISUMBING, J.
At the outset, pursuant to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, the instant petition for certiorari should have been filed with the Court of Appeals and not with this Court. Disregard of this doctrine warrants the outright dismissal of the petition. While the Court's original jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is concurrent with the RTCs and the Court of Appeals in certain cases, we emphasized in Liga ng mga Barangay National v. Atienza, Jr.[9] that such concurrence does not allow an unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum, thus
	GR No. 146769 2007-08-17	SPS. MAXIMO ABADILLA AND ENGRACIA C. ABADILLA v. VIRGINIA HOFILEÑA-EUROPA NACHURA, J.
As we held in Santiago v. Vasquez,[26] and reiterated in cases subsequent to it, the propensity of litigants and lawyers to disregard the hierarchy of courts in our judicial system by seeking relief directly from this Court must be put to a halt for two reasons: (1) it would be an imposition upon the precious time of this Court; and (2) it would cause an inevitable and resultant delay, intended or otherwise, in the adjudication of cases which, in numerous instances have to be remanded or referred to the lower court, the latter being the proper forum under the rules of procedure, or being better equipped to resolve the issues because this Court is not a trier of facts.[27] In the case at bench, we again apply, as well as remind litigants and lawyers of, the said policy.
	GR NO. 159208 2006-08-18	RENNIE DECLARADOR v. SALVADOR S. GUBATON CALLEJO, SR., J.
On the second issue, the rule is that a petition for review on certiorari which seeks to nullify an order of the RTC should be filed in the Court of Appeals in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.[10] A direct invocation of the original jurisdiction of the Court to issue writs of certiorari may be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor clearly and specifically set out in the petition.[11] This is an established policy necessary to prevent inordinate demands upon this Court's time and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further overcrowding of the Court's docket.[12]
	GR NO. 165973 2005-06-29	LACSON HERMANAS v. HEIRS OF CENON IGNACIO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
At the outset, the instant petition for certiorari should have been filed with the Court of Appeals and not with this Court pursuant to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. Disregard of this rule warrants the outright dismissal of the petition. While the Court's original jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is concurrent with the Regional Trial Courts and the Court of Appeals in certain cases, we emphasized in Liga ng mga Barangay National v. Atienza, Jr.,[8] that such concurrence does not allow an unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum, thus
	GR NO. 140954 2005-04-12	HEIRS OF BERTULDO HINOG: BERTULDO HINOG II v. ACHILLES MELICOR AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The rationale for this rule is two-fold: (a) it would be an imposition upon the precious time of this Court; and (b) it would cause an inevitable and resultant delay, intended or otherwise, in the adjudication of cases, which in some instances had 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 because this Court is not a trier of facts.[32]
	GR No. 148191 2003-11-25	CIR v. SOLIDBANK CORPORATION PANGANIBAN, J.
Before us is a Petition for Review[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to annul the July 18, 2000 Decision[2] and the May 8, 2001 Resolution[3] of the Court of Appeals[4] (CA) in CA-GR SP No. 54599. The decretal portion of the assailed Decision reads as follows:

LIGA NG MGA BARANGAY NATIONAL v. CITY MAYOR OF MANILA