4. Adherence of Jurisdiction

Hierarchy of Courts

Under the principle of hierarchy of courts, direct recourse to this Court is improper because the Supreme Court is a court of last resort and must remain to be so in order for it to satisfactorily perform its constitutional functions, thereby allowing it to devote its time and attention to matters within its exclusive jurisdiction and preventing the overcrowding of its docket. (Dy v. Bibat-Palamos, G.R. No. 196200, 2013).

The doctrine means that once jurisdiction has attached to the court, it cannot be ousted by the happening of subsequent events, although of a character which would have prevented it from attaching in the first instance. The court, once jurisdiction has been acquired, retains that jurisdiction until finally disposes of the case. (Baritua vs. Mercader, G.R. Np. 136048, 2001).

Adherence of Jurisdiction (Continuity of Jurisdiction)

Once jurisdiction has attached, it cannot be ousted by subsequent happenings or events, although the event is of such character which would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance. Once jurisdiction has been acquired by the court, it retains that jurisdiction until it finally disposes of the case. (Baritua v. Mercader, G.R. No. 136048, 2001).

General Rule: A law enacted during the pendency of a case which transfers jurisdiction to another court does not affect cases prior to its enactment.

Principle of Adherence of Jurisdiction

Once jurisdiction is vested in the court, it is retained up to the end of litigation. It remains with the court until the case is finally terminated. (Dela Cruz v. Moya, G.R. No. L-65192, 1988)

Once vested, jurisdiction cannot be withdrawn by:

• Subsequent amendment or stipulation (People v. Chupeco, G.R. No. 19568, 1964) or;
• Subsequent statutory amendment of the rules of jurisdiction.

Exception: the succeeding statute:

• Expressly provides otherwise; or
• Is construed that it is intended to operate to actions pending before its amendment (Binay v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 120011, 1999)

Jurisdiction is retained regardless of:

• Whether the evidence proves a less offense that that charged in the information
• The subsequent happening of events, although of a character which would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance.