Doctrines and Principles Flashcards
Definition: Principle of Judicial Hierarchy of Courts (Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts)
It provides that when courts have concurrent or shared jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, a litigant is not free to file a complaint or petition in any court of his or her choice, but must observe a certain hierarchy.
What is the requirement of the Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts?
Why is it required?
The Supreme Court stated that the doctrine of hierarchy of courts requires that recourse must first be obtained from lower courts sharing concurrent jurisdiction with a higher court.
This is to ensure that the Supreme Court remains a court of last resort so as to satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it by the fundamental charter and immemorial tradition.
(Provincial Bus Operators Association of the Philippines vs. Department of Labor and Employment, 836 Phil. 205, 2018)
Is acquiring writ of certiorari limited to the Supreme Court?
No.
In People vs Cuaresma, 254 Phil. 418, April 18, 1989, the Supreme Court, in dismissing the petition, required strict observance of the policy of hierarchy of courts stating that the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari is not exclusive. It is shared by the Supreme Court with Regional Trial Courts, which may issue the writ, enforceable in any part of their respective regions.
It is also shared by the Supreme Court, and by the Regional Trial Court, with the Court of Appeals, although prior to the effectivity of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 on Aug. 14, 1981, the latter’s authority to issue the extraordinary writs was restricted to those “in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.”
When can the Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts may be relaxed?
(1) When there are genuine issues of constitutionality that must be addressed at the most immediate time;
(2) When the issues involved are of transcendental importance;
(3) In cases of first impression;
(4) When the constitutional issues raised are better decided by the Supreme Court;
(5) When the exigency or time element presented in the case cannot be ignored;
(6) When the petition filed reviews the act of a constitutional organ;
(7) When petitioners have no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law; and
(8) When the petition includes questions that are dictated by public welfare and the advancement of public policy, or demanded by the broader interest of justice, or the orders complained of were found to be patent nullities, or the appeal was considered as clearly an inappropriate remedy.
Definition: Doctrine of Judicial Courtesy
The principle of judicial courtesy is applied when the suspension of the proceedings in the lower court is necessary in order to avoid mooting (dispute) and moribund (decline) the matter raised in the higher court.
This principle is the exception rather than the rule.
What is the general rule on staying proceedings in the lower courts?
Section 7 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides the general rule that the mere pendency of a special civil action for certiorari commenced in relation to a case pending before a lower court or court of origin does not stay the proceedings therein in the absence of a writ of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order.
Is there an exception to the rule on Doctrine of Judicial Courtesy?
Yes.
The Supreme Court ruled that even if there is no writ of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order issued by a higher court it is proper for the lower court to suspend proceedings on the precept of judicial courtesy despite the provision of Section 7, Rule 65 of Rules of court.
What is the general rule provided in Section 7, Rule 65 of Rules of Courts?
Section 7, Rule 65 provided the general rule that “The mere pendency of a special civil action for Certiorari commenced in relation to a case pending before a lower court or court of origin does not stay the proceedings therein in the absence of a writ of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order.”
Where does the rule on judicial courtesy applies?
It applies where there is a strong probability that the issues before the higher court would be rendered moot and moribund as a result of the continuation of the proceedings in the lower court or court of origin.
(Eternal Gardens Memorial Park vs. CA)
It is based on the hierarchy of courts and applies only to lower courts in instances where, even if there is no writ of preliminary injunction or TRO issued by a higher court, it would be proper for a lower court to suspend its proceedings for practical and ethical considerations.
Definition: Doctrine of Judicial Stability or Non-Interference
The doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference in the regular orders or judgments of a co-equal court is an elementary principle in the administration of justice: No court can interfere by injunction with the judgments or orders of another court of concurrent jurisdiction having the power to grant the relief sought by the injunction.
In simple terms:
It provides that the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction could not be interfered with by any court of concurrent jurisdiction.
What is the rationale of the Doctrine of Judicial Stability or Non-Interference?
The rationale for the rule is founded on the concept of jurisdiction: A court that acquires jurisdiction over the case and renders judgment therein has jurisdiction over its judgment, to the exclusion of all other coordinate courts, for its execution and over all its incidents, and to control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of ministerial officers acting in connection with this judgment.
