This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-07-14 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| It also did not escape our attention that from the RTC, petitioners made a direct recourse to this Court. This is against the well-settled principle dictating that a petition for certiorari assailing the interlocutory orders of the RTC should be filed with the Court of Appeals and not directly with the Supreme Court. It was held in Rayos v. City of Manila[23] that: Indeed, this Court, the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts exercise concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction. However, such concurrence in jurisdiction does not give petitioners unbridled freedom of choice of court forum. In Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog v. Melicor, citing People v. Cuaresma, the Court held: | |||||
|
2013-04-17 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| HTRDC correctly argued that respondents erred in filing the special civil action for certiorari directly with the CA instead of the RTC. In doing so, they violated the time-honored principle of respect for the hierarchy of courts. While this Court, the CA, and the RTC have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari¸ the parties to a suit are not given unbridled freedom to choose between court forums.[29] Judicial hierarchy indicates that "petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level ("inferior") courts should be filed with the [RTC], and those against the latter, with the [CA]."[30] Therefore, respondents' petition for certiorari was dismissible outright on procedural grounds. | |||||