G. Hierarchy of Courts

Principle of Judicial Hierarchy

The judicial system follows a ladderized scheme which in essence generally requires a party to seek relief first from the appropriate lower court, even when higher courts have concurrent original jurisdiction, unless exceptional circumstances justify direct resort to a higher court.

A higher court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts. (Santiago v. Vasquez, G.R. Nos. 99289-90, 1993).

Although courts have concurrent original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, such concurrence does not allow unrestricted freedom of choice of the court forum. A direct invocation of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. (First United v. Poro Point, GR No. 178799, 2009).

In several cases, however, the Supreme Court has allowed direct invocation of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari on the ground of special and important reasons clearly stated in the petition; when dictated by public welfare and the advancement of public policy; when demanded by the broader interest of justice; when the challenged orders were patent nullities; or when analogous exceptional and compelling circumstances called for and justified our immediate and direct handling of the case. (Republic v. Caguioa, G.R. No. 174385, 2013).

Hierarchy of Courts

General Rule: The filing of a petition under Rule 65 must follow the hierarchy of courts. Thus, direct resort to the Supreme Court will not be entertained.

Exception: 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 the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction. (Santiago v. Vasquez, G.R. Nos. 99289- 90, 1993)