and injunction, such concurrence gives petitioners no unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum, so we held in People v . Cuaresma: This concurrence of jurisdiction is not 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 hierarchy of courts. That hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals, and should also serve as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs. A becoming regard for 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 Courts 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 established policy. It is a policy necessary to prevent inordinate demands upon the Courts time and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further over-crowding of the Courts docket. In Santiago v . Vasquez, this Court forcefully expressed that the propensity of litigants and lawyers to disregard the hierarchy of courts must be put to a halt, not only because of the imposition upon the precious time of this Court, but also because of the inevitable and resultant delay, intended or otherwise, in the adjudication of the case which often has to be remanded or referred to the lower court, the proper forum under the rules of procedure, or as better equipped to resolve the issues since this Court is not a trier of facts. We reiterated the judicial policy that this Court will not entertain direct resort to it 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 [its] primary jurisdiction. Shotgun: Petitioners fileda petition that theycaptioned as one for Certiorari , directlyto the Supreme Court, to declare Ordinance No. 15- 92, Office Order No. 23, and Resolution No. 33, Ordinance No. 2 as unconstitutional, and restrain respondent courts from assuming jurisdiction over and hearing cases concerning the violation of the Ordinances and of the Office Order. Held: There is here a clear disregard of the hierarchy of courts, and no special and important reason or exceptional or compelling circumstance has been adduced why direct recourse to the Supreme Court should be allowed.Supreme Court reiterated the judicial policy that it will not entertain direct resort to it 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 its primary jurisdiction. Petitioners do not have unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 34 pages?
- Spring '17
- Atty Jimenez
- Law, Supreme Court of the United States